The struggle of the little citizen across time and space 2

  The movement of all objects in the universe is carried out "in time volume" rather than with time; generally speaking, it is always the object that moves, and it is always time that does not move. Movement and time are inseparable. The essence of time is a three-dimensional volume, and the unit of time quantity is expressed in cubic meters.

  Time is completely hidden in space in the universe, coinciding with and equal to spatial volume, so it's hard for us to discover its existence, mistakenly thinking that time is invisible and intangible, and cannot be grasped. Time and space in the universe are symmetrically unified, overlapping each other to form three-dimensional spacetime. The three-dimensional spacetime view is simpler and more understandable than the so-called four-dimensional spacetime view, and can directly describe it, making it more reasonable.

  Time in the universe is stationary rather than flowing uniformly, and all objects are moving continuously in time rather than in space. All objects move absolutely relative to the stationary time, time has no length but only size, time has no fast or slow, therefore time also has no beginning or end.

  There is no straight line motion in the universe, all objects are circulating in their own time tubes, which makes the characteristics of time inevitably manifest as curved circular structures like space. The universe is a rotating sphere similar to atoms, Earth and solar systems.

  It must be emphasized that only by recognizing the three-dimensionality of time can we finally interpret the universe, otherwise we can only wander in old theories forever.

  After understanding the three-dimensional nature of time, we need to continue discussing two other related concepts, namely momentum and velocity. In the universe, the time volume occupied by any single object in motion is necessarily directly related to its momentum and velocity, which together form a set of interrelated variables. There exists a definite proportional relationship between momentum, time volume, and velocity, where the value of any one variable is determined by the other two, they are inseparable, mutually explanatory, and indispensable. In addition to momentum, time volume, and velocity, the universe also contains another set of variables, namely mass, spatial volume, and density, which also exist in a definite proportional relationship, where the value of any one variable is determined by the other two, they are inseparable, mutually explanatory, and indispensable. The two sets of variables in the universe are symmetrically unified and can be interpreted and explained in relation to each other.

  It must be pointed out that since people in the past did not truly understand time, their understanding of the concepts of "momentum" and "velocity" was inevitably ambiguous, to the point where there were errors and contradictions in the definitions of "momentum" and "velocity" that cannot be avoided. Now we first discuss momentum.

  In textbooks, momentum is defined as the product of a particle's mass and velocity. The unit of momentum is expressed in kg·m/s, which is undoubtedly incorrect. If momentum equals the product of mass and velocity, then it must necessarily include mass and be greater than mass. This means that momentum should be considered to consist of two parts: one part is definitely called mass, but what should the other part be called? If this part is also called mass, it would mean that momentum consists entirely of mass, with no distinction between them. If the other part is called momentum, it would mean that momentum contains both mass and a part of momentum, which is contradictory. Perhaps someone might say that the other part should be called velocity, but why can't we also call velocity "mass" or "momentum"? Moreover, if momentum necessarily includes mass, does the particle's mass still belong to momentum when it loses its velocity? Why do we always think that momentum completely disappears in a stationary particle? If we cannot reasonably answer these questions, can we still affirm that momentum is the product of mass and velocity? Furthermore, expressing the unit of momentum as kg·m/s is also very forced, as it clearly appears as a ratio. A ratio cannot represent a definite quantity's unit. For example, if the unit of mass is kilograms, then the corresponding unit of momentum should also be kilograms, not something else. It can be said with certainty that the current concept of momentum is incorrect and untenable. Consider an iron ball at rest relative to the ground: some people say its velocity is zero, so it has no momentum; others see it rotating around the Earth's axis along with the ground and say it has a large momentum. Two different interpretations necessarily lead to two different calculation results. Does the iron ball have momentum or not? The answer is undoubtedly affirmative.

  For a long time, people have firmly believed that motion is always relative and cannot be determined whether an object is moving or not when losing or coexisting with two different reference systems, so it is also impossible to determine whether the object has momentum. Under the influence of this wrong way of thinking, people inevitably think that there can be no absolute momentum in all objects, and even believe that the momentum in the object is optional and sometimes exists. In this way, the momentum calculated by people based on relative motion is naturally also a relative momentum, which is a very wrong understanding.

  It can be said with certainty that in the real universe, there is indeed an absolutely stationary reference system, which is the time volume we have repeatedly emphasized. Time and space are the only things in the universe that do not move. (This issue will be further explained later. Time and space only make expansion and contraction movements, and only change in size. They are all finite.) All objects that exist in time must necessarily be absolutely moving and have absolute momentum. Momentum and mass are equal in the universe, both are inherent quantities of an object, and are absolutely existing quantities. The two are relatively independent. Momentum only represents the quantity of motion of an object, is a purely kinetic quantity, also known as the quantity that occupies time. The magnitude of momentum is only related to the size of the time volume occupied by the object's motion and the magnitude of the speed, but not to mass. This is like the magnitude of an object's mass being related to the size of the space volume it occupies and the magnitude of its density, but not to momentum. In an object, momentum and mass are equivalent, equal in weight, and overlap; time volume and space volume are equivalent, equal in weight, and overlap; speed and density are equivalent, equal in weight, and overlap.

  On the earth, all objects rotate around the axis of the earth with the ground surface. Under no external force, they maintain their original momentum unchanged. A stationary iron ball on the ground will never roll by itself unless it is forced to change its speed and roll on the ground due to the transfer of momentum from other objects. However, at this time, the momentum possessed by the iron ball is not its true momentum but has been added with the momentum of other objects. Once the extra momentum disappears, the iron ball will gradually return to its original speed and momentum state, eventually stopping on the ground and rotating with the earth together.

  Now that we know, any object under no influence of other factors always maintains its original momentum unchanged, which means the momentum of an object is inherent and not a product of mass and velocity. So how is the size of the original momentum in an object determined? To be precise: the momentum of an object is the product of the time volume it occupies and its velocity, just like the mass of an object is the product of the space volume it occupies and its density. If we want to determine the size of a certain object's momentum, we must first determine the size of the time volume it occupies and the size of its velocity; this is equivalent to saying that if we want to determine the size of a certain object's mass, we must first determine the size of the space volume it occupies and the size of its density. Unfortunately, however, the concept of speed in existing textbooks is also incorrect and needs to be corrected first. It must be unified with the unit of mass. Please don't rush to refute me, this is not sensationalism, there are many things we haven't thought of yet.

  The concept of speed in textbooks is defined as the ratio of a particle's displacement to the time it takes, with units of meters per second. But what does this mean? According to the book, displacement refers to the distance traveled by a particle, measured in meters. However, this statement is at least imprecise. We already know that any particle's motion must sweep out a volume, which is where its momentum resides. If we only consider motion as the distance traveled by a particle and not the volume swept out, then momentum and time become disconnected. This is like saying that an object moves in space while time passes on a clock.

  We also know that using seconds to represent time units in the current speed concept is already an incorrect view, because seconds have been proven to only represent angular units. As a result, length units (meters) and angular units (seconds) cannot be compared. We can't say how many meters are in 15 degrees.

  Even if we consider the angular unit "second" as representing area or volume within an angle, the ratio of this speed concept still doesn't hold up, because meters, square meters, and cubic meters cannot be compared. We can't say how many meters are in a certain area or volume.

  Another important point is that the current speed concept does not reflect the concept of momentum at all, which is unthinkable. In contrast, the current density concept clearly reflects the concept of mass.

  In summary, the content expressed by our current speed concept is ambiguous and unclear, and cannot accurately reflect the true meaning of speed. The root cause of this problem lies in our fundamental misunderstanding of what "time" is.

  Let's modify this ambiguous concept now. In the unit of speed m/s, the time unit cannot be expressed in seconds, but should be expressed in cubic meters. The length unit meter is a redundant concept in speed and should be changed to momentum. Since the original unit of momentum used - kg·m/s is incorrect, it must be replaced. To make the unit of momentum consistent with the unit of mass, we express the unit of momentum as: kilogram (momentum), so the modified speed concept should be expressed as the ratio of the momentum of a particle to the time volume, and the unit of speed is expressed as: kilogram (momentum) / m3 (time). The new unit of speed is very symmetrical with the original unit of density: kilogram (momentum) / m3 (time) kilogram (mass) / m3 (space) We call the modified momentum, time volume and speed the new concept, which has a mathematical symmetry and unity with another set of variables in physics - mass, spatial volume and density. After a slight comparison, you will find that there are reasonable factors in it. In short, the emergence of the new concept is not only a change in the content and aesthetic effect of the old concept, but also implies that a new physical revolution is inevitable.