Dear Edwin,
I am aware that the work I have presented in my essays has not received recognition of having value. But, I think perhaps the buck stops here with regard to your point that:
"If you can write something more to relate seconds to charge, independent of units, that would be significant."
The buck stops because what you ask cannot be done. All and any properties are represented in physics equations, and therefore in any physics that matters, by their units. I included a link to an essay that helps to make the point that systems of units are not equal in the search for empirical truths. The correctness of physics equations requires careful design of the system of units used. The MKS system serves the purpose of demonstrating how to learn new empirically justified knowledge. The specific example shown in my referenced essay has to do with the proportionality constant of Coulomb's equation.
Later in my work I explain why the MKS system of units is not satisfactory as a universal system of units. I derive my view of a universal system, usually referred to by physicists as natural units. I don't think I have explained them here at FQXi.org. Long before they matter physicists, in my opinion, must address and correct their practice of having introduced artificial indefinable units.
If what Marc Séguin challenged was so flagrantly wrong, close coincidences of magnitudes of electric charge and the time required for light to travel the radius of the hydrogen atom would never have occurred so readily. Furthermore, replacing coulombs with seconds could never have been put to useful results as I presented in my first essay of the first essay contest.
As I pointed out to Marc, the unit of coulomb is dependent upon the unit of seconds. I didn't realize that I would have to make this point since its basis rests in the MKS definitions for ampere and coulombs. I will write it out.
I think though of greater immediate importance is to make the claim here in this message that names of properties are of no consequence insofar as physics equations are concerned. Everything that I must argue in defense of must rest upon direct reliance upon the units of empirical evidence for all definitions of units that follow them. If this guideline is not followed, then theoretical physicists have an open door to make the equations of physics after their own image.
I have been helping to babysit my granddaughter and helping her parents to move. Tonight is my first free time in days. I value our conversations and friendship highly. I have waited to rate your essay for two reasons. The first is tactical. If I receive a ten, I very quickly receive a one, contest after contest. The last contest I had very nearly all tens and ones. The ones outnumbered the tens just enough to cause my elimination from the finals. Whatever I rate your essays as it will be a last moment filing. The second reason is that I have had to study to prepare myself to address "... a simple model of spin in a constant field to derive their understanding of an experiment based on the scattering of dipole moments in a non-constant field.
Thank you for asking for me to comment on your essay. It is an honor to receive that request from a physicist. By the way, I observe that Sylvain Poirier is not a physicist. My opinion is that several of his opinions extend beyond his expertise. However, after considering the blog discussions and looking into his links, and, despite his interest in bull excrement, I will give him credit for this: Unlike those who have left ratings for my essay, Sylvain Poirier leaves his comments and signs his name. Should he happen to read this message, I would appreciate being named should he ever express his opinion about my work.
James Putnam