The problem with the Bohr radius is that it is an artefact of the electron; neither does the comparison provide us with an exact indication of the Sun's mass. If it did, a precise theoretical formula of G would have been out a long time ago. The ratio of the masses, M/m, is equal to 1.195726712x10^57. The ratio between the Sun's Schwarzschild Radius and half the proton's Compton wavelength, R/wavelength/2, approximates at 4.4938217x10^18 which is equal to c/G. (c/G)^3 is equal to 9.075018345x10^55, which differs from M/m by 13.1760252. Which is interesting because the proton mass divided by h/4 is equal to 1.009721667x10^7. Divide this into the reciprocal of the Planck mass and we have 3.62987951; square this and we get 13.17602. If we call the role of the proton, here, the proton monitor and the role of the Sun the master mass we can set up a gradient scale where, if, the master mass goes up the proton monitor goes down. If we take h/4 as a proton monitor and we know that it differs by 1.009721667x10^7 we then know that the Master mass must increase by that amount from approximately 2x10^30kg to 2x1.009721667x10^37kg. If we take the Compton wavelength of h/4, halve it for radius equivalence, 6.6712816x10^9, an artefact of c, we find the Radius/half wavelength is still c/G. If we want to find a master mass where its proton monitor callaborates to the extent that both ratios are equal we have to multiply 2x1.009721668x10^37 by the Planck mass, 2.72838789x10^-8kg which equals 5.50982475x10^29kg, divide h/4 by the Planck mass to get 6.071419972x10^-27kg, the new proton monitor. Then M/m is equal to (c/G)^3 along with (R/wavelebgth/2)^3.