The dogma that I have had to fight against to figure out my theories.

Upton Sinclair — 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

 This is a list of dogma that I have had to argue with to prove my points to the AI:

1. Presenting Constants as Irreducible Mysteries: Directly hides their composite, unit-scaling nature.

2. Focusing on Zero Rest Mass for Photons: De-emphasizes the E~m equivalence for light, making one of the core proportionalities seem less universal.

3. Defining Base Units via Constants: Inverts the logical hierarchy and formalizes the misconception about the constants' role.  The definition of the unit of measure defines the constant, not the reverse. Change the unit definition for mass  and or meter or second and c and h both scale  with the change of unit definition. 

4. Adopting Reduced Planck Units (

   $\mathrm{\hslash }$

   ) as Standard: Obscures the simpler 

   $h$

   -based unit scaling view anchored in linear frequency and 

   $\sqrt{G_n}$

   .

5. Conflating "Quantized" and "Discrete Values": Creates perceived mystery around property values that is due to environmental constraints, not fundamental particle nature.

6. Obscuring Composite Nature of 

   $h,k_B,G_{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{I}}$

   : Failing to define them explicitly as 

   $\text{Hz\_kg}\cdot c^2$

   , 

   $\text{K\_Hz}\cdot \text{Hz\_kg}\cdot c^2$

   , etc., hides the underlying dimensional scaling chain.

7. Planck units are a new scale in nature where Quantum effects dominate.  They are just a basis rotation of SI units to new units of measure, same description of the same universe, just measured in different units. 

8. By limiting dimensional analysis to just the qualitative aspect of units (dimensions) and not extending it to the quantitative aspect of their numerical scaling based on the constants' values, the standard approach reinforces the idea that:

   • The dimensions are about mathematical consistency.

   • The numerical values of the constants are separate, fundamental inputs, rather than the specific numerical ratios that quantify the scaling required by those dimensions.

   This limitation in the scope of standard dimensional analysis is, are another element that contributes to obscuring the simple truth that constants are fundamentally numerical unit conversion factors. It treats the dimensional part of the constant as separate from its numerical value part, whereas the PUCS framework sees the numerical value as precisely quantifying the dimensional scaling needed between specific unit pairs.