Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson  Consider that the Cartesian Coordinate system on which our notion of three and only three dimensions is derived or based in, is really an entirely arbitrary artifice of 90 degrees or "right angles" that is a very useful way of modeling the construction of human inventions, gadgets, cars, houses, bridges, toys of all sorts; it is not necessarily in any way an accurate way to describe or to model the Forces of nature as they influence our lives, however.
And they totally ignore what are obvious influences, like density, pressure, charge, heat, taste, smell, sound and sight or any other informational type of densities.
Furthermore in practical practice, the three dimensions cannot even be taken as equals when applied to the "real" world. There is a huge difference in trying to move something three feet to the right and three feet up into the air or three feet down into the ground. You have to fight against Gravity to go "up" and fight a physical barrier of dirt and rocks and just massive obstacles to go "down" in actual real world application.
It just seems to me that if physics is the discipline of trying to describe the physical attributes of the world as we perceive it, that it (we) need(s) to revamp the basic parameters that we use as the intrinsic variables that contribute to our perceptions, i.e. our definition or understanding of dimensions.
Supposed three dimensional "Space" is certainly not homogeneously dense, so to treat it all the same in all directions is not a very accurate representation of how things are. Therefore, trying to use a three dimensional model that assumes that space and movement through space is equitable in all directions is patently absurd.
There is nothing a-priori that there has to be 90 degree distinction between the variables that influence the movement of an object from a starting point. You could just as easily have constructed a model based on a 60 degree separation, and, in fact, you would probably be moving in the correct direction to model the real world by doing so. Although I suspect that there are many more actual dimensions that could be represented mathematically as additional variables that would much more accurately model the true influences that affect the movements of Points of attention. (any point of interest or focus or concern or investigation or just reference)
A much better definition of a "dimension" that more accurately describes the real world might be: A unique type of force that influences the relative directional movement of an object from a mutually established originating reference point.
Such that: Dimensions represented as Vectors, 'a' through 'n', might be mathematically represented by:
(a^n) + (b^n) + (c^n) + . . . (n^n) = C (some constant as the resulting combined vector and/or spherical extremity of the set of all the variable solutions)
This allows for any number of unique variables that might influence the "movement" or path of an object, "Doe" (as in John Doe or Jane Doe).
This is also a part of the mathematics for my proposed ToE.
Humbly submitted for your comments, Aaron |
Honorable greetings to you, Aaron.
I feel questioning the three dimensions is appropriate in this three thread. As you can tell this thread is filled with three or quasi-three examples, so it is a good fit. However, if you want to set up a dimension thread I'd probably follow you there; also because I am curious about how you envision your toe. And I agree that the word dimension is applicable to much.
I love your words on how the dimensional world is experienced, and while I can follow you to the 60 degree angle example, I would like to see the practical side of it explained. With perpendicular angles at least a clear distinction of direction has been created.
Looking forward to read more of your writing.