I know that "this is just high school stuff", but the gravitational constant is literally in the units m^(3)kg^(-1)s^(-2) (meaning take away kg s^(2), replace with m^(3) )
So, doesn't saying "As something falls, the only way to tell how much that object could move each next moment is to convert it's mass and acceleration into cuboidal space"
somewhat imply and lead to the conclusion that energy and time are convertible to distance?
(I'm asking because my ontological hypothesis depends on everything being convertible to a linear distance, which I'll probably post about later) But also, because it seems like a combined theory of everything would have a basis for conversion *of everything*
Sources Page
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ddqBuNdkgLkHFgKTIkw35SoUlXR79vsd_lZVFRrNlg0/edit?usp=drivesdk
@unnnmslymchlmps
You might be thinking of [natural units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units). If you based your system on G and c, where G is the gravitational constant and c is the speed of light, to convert time to distance, you multiply by c; to convert energy to distance, you multiply by (G/c^4).
It's more usual to do the reverse; that is, to express everything in terms of energy rather than distance. This is why particle physicists express almost everything in terms of the [electron volt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt), which is really a unit of energy.