(explanatory video) 
|
12. Dimensionality - not a physical term! Ok, I admit, one has difficulties to imagine and to visualise the dynamic horn torus system as basis for constructing an universe. But can we be really happy with our three- or four-dimensional idea? Is, conversely, the perhaps infinite extension of space, universe or multiverse better conceivable? - Hold a human hair with extended arm against night sky to cover a far afield celestial object. In case it is a galaxy, the distance will be some 1 billion light-years, and it takes 100 000 years for light, to travel from left edge of your hair to the right. Is even this very simple example really imaginable? - Every proof of three-dimensional space as optimum for the existing physical laws and hence for the evolution of an universe and for development of life is evidence for efficiency of ineradicable fixated engrams! That's a really weird fact. The variables used in such 'proofs' always are partly deduced from the dimensional description. Three-dimensional space in mathematical sense is not as self-evident as it is in our engrams. In actual fact it is already a mighty, most complex and complicated mathematical construct with more than 20 necessary axioms to form it. This realization and postulations of linearity, continuity and continuum as set of punctiform elements let our space of perception appear not to be very fundamental, so not to exist in nature a priori. And - important - it has no natural metric to be measured. Methods of measurement, defined strictly within the rich system of axioms, follow very complex rules and are even not possible in a logically consistent way when we reveal and avoid all engrams. Furthermore in all spaces without a possibility of self-metrisation the origin and values of dimensionless physical constants will stay secretly and unexplainable till doomsday. Well aware that every explanation of natural laws is a describing image, a rough copy, a simplifying model, and after every model so far doesn't answer all important questions, we make another try, not with three dimensions (Newtonian physics) nor four (relativity), not five (Kaluza-Klein) nor eleven (standard model) and not 26 or so (strings) - no, we do not use the term dimension at all! We banish dimensions totally from our horn torus game, which provides us another crutch to hobble around the never reachable and imaginable truth, only to enjoy the short moments of supposed close contact. To handle dynamic horn tori we need some basic requirements: just this conceptual suppression of dimensions or at least abandonment of their linearly independence (what means the same) and negation of continuum respectively continuity and additionally of locality. Linearity of the mathematical frame in which all is embedded, is not required, since linear properties of variables are possible in non-linear spaces too (after all quantum-mechanical formalism shall be allowed to persist!). With these conditions we are equipped with much more complex properties than our linear three-dimensional space, inclusive all extended and curved versions, ever can provide. The dynamically nested horn tori resp. their cycloids not only supply us with all the required properties, they also create the mathematical embedding frame without need of further axioms, i.e. they generate their space themselves, whose natural self-metrisation gives us the possibility to evaluate constants, and the lines within one entity simultaneously show patterns, which can emerge as various physical objects. Isn't it that, what we are looking for? close |
