Please read up on Sciama's ''origin of inertia'' to understand this topic.

The quantity:

is usually a dimensionless quantity, often seen in red shift formula but in this instance, this is only true when you have something like

However, for some reason, Sciama did chose to leave the factor of out of his definition of the potential. You can see this in his equation (1):

In fact, Sciama has identified the gravielectric field in such a way that it has dimensions

For clarity

In cgs units. …And from that we can question, ‘’what if that constant was more fundamentally related to the gravitational vacuum permittivity ?’’ As you can see, under this assumption new constants (may) be seen to enter some of the equations. An example is the gravimagnetic coupling equation:

We’d get

In this ‘’special case’’ Sciama’s equation features the gravitational permittivity as the ‘’route connection’’ to the gravielectric field. The reason why I think this is the case, because looking at the primary gravimagnetic coupling equation, if the permittivity sat in the equation where we might expect it, it removes the gravitational interpretation from Sciama’s gravielectric field. So perhaps his ratio is really only an approximate to a gravitational analogy of permittivity. Suppose we define the gravitational permittivity and permeability in the following way:

so that

Then they do feature in the gravimagnetic equation;

In which the permeability and permittivity from identifying like terms:

Sciama identified the equation

(or may be also seen as)

which is very close to the gravitational permeability par it being too large by a factor of . It is surprising that Sciama never made mention of it in his paper, it is very possible he was not aware that he defined the field in such a way that it seems to agree with the definition of a gravitational permeability.