Debate:
Step one, determine which proofs are necessary to clearly express the position of a scientist who believes he can confirm there are only two dimensions of space.
What is known...
There are exactly two spatial dimensions WHEN...
..an angular value is referenced to the origin of x and y. The center (origin) of x and y represents the center of gravity for an object given it's shape and mass distribution.
Each dimension can be a substrate (vehicle) to either the force of linear momentum, angular momentum and in high-energy states both forces.
Linear and angular forces are preferentially separate, orthogonal (perpendicular).
These forces can trade places.
Either...
x = angular force
y = linear force
Exchange of polarity through mass and spatial dimensions.
x = linear force
y = angular force
..a spinning top will invariably organize these two forces on perpendicular dimensions.
The entropy of the strongest force along one dimension is the constructive interference driving the stability of the load axis dimension perpendicular to that where force was applied.
I can imagine calculating x and y for two dimensions at the particle level where the interactions can be considered in their x and y properties. Does that mean we have two dimensional one angular space at the particle level?
From eye perspective, throw a baseball straight ahead where the mind's eye and intention can stick the ball at the forward [x, y] value. How would one declare a baseball in space 24 inches beside the other? ..number of radians in the necessary slice divided by the number of radians assigned to a circle, 360, 1000 (metric circle), 4 degrees, etc... ..this yields a universal percentage of a whole rotation, one Hz, one cycle = 1, 100%, 1/1.
Two dimensions + one angular value :)
What happened to Z!? ..an abstraction of logic? ..my world is melting ..well, I understand I can declare a point anywhere in space ..without Z???
Three linear dimensions ..or two linear + one angular ..which do you believe best represents spatial dimensions in our cosmic neighborhood?
There may be three values, there do not seem to be three dimensional axes in our universe ..I see evidence for only two.
When in human history did we implement the fictitious third axis? ..I need to know this.
AHA!!
There would be no Americas as we know them had there been a "third dimension".
"Impossible" some would say.
Okay then... where is the third axis when using an astrolabe or sextant?
We were declaring objects in space without giving them a mass and two linear axes which originate from a center of balance. It seems that when the variables required to model a true object are considered, only two axes and one angular value remain.
What if? ..we are not three but two dimensional, with a curve. Many slight angular curves from the previous 2D plane which yields curvy protruding shapes and only certain types of inward curves given the physics of the environment. I think we could model a human with such physics, two axes (dimensions) + one angular value.
Oh, like the nautilus vortex only with cells and such Fibonacci like growth modeling of a biological system. It may not be accurate though would be the most appropriate topology for growth which does not take place in a linear predictable way ..yet. Our glasses may be enhanced along the way.
Of course this two linear + one angular space causes the modelling of a cube to become a daunting task.
Three dimensions make quick work of calculating the bricks in a structure, they also complicate the declaration of natural shapes. More evidence that we may have overlooked the significance of the third value when it is either linear or angular.
We need to comb through physics equations to see if there are any tri-axial mathematics lingering which can now "compute" where human ability to conceptualize many values failed. All of the physicists in the modern world claim we live in three dimensions of space and time ..is that [x, y, z, t] ..or [x, y, r, t]? ..the difference seems important enough to be specified (r <= radian circumferential segments in one whole circle).
Brick shaped planets and triangle suns are not a fact as of yet. Tri-axials have their place though do not seem the likely candidate for expressing the behaviour of natural systems.
I need to ask a physicist, what EXACTLY is intended by "three dimensions"?
Given three dimensions we cannot even calculate the time of day for our ancestors ..CASE CLOSED! ;)
Rediscovering America ..with hemp ropes while navigating in two dimensional spaces, WE even know the time of day. :)
Being encumbered by the impedance of having a protruding third axis everywhere one goes... the threshold of perception eludes by exactly one axis, trapped in cubically inspired tri-axial dimensions.
Constructive interference in a spinning top shows us one drive axis (angular) and one load axis (linear) x, y and... and... only two axes (dimensions) appear in this so-called "three-dimensional" object.
Angular force is generating the orthogonal (perpendicular) "negative" of the positive input force, expressed as an orthogonal polarization of linear and angular forces.
Take a dipole, one dimension (segment). Rotating the dipole produces an orthogonal axis, two dimensions of space. An angular force allows the dipole ends [+, -] to trace a sphere rather than a circle.
Spatial Dimensions < 3 and > 2 ..who is correct? ..3, 2 or two dimensions with an angular twist?
I would say comparing dipole quantum mechanics to interstellar physics settles it. Every piece of evidence helps establish footing for debate and an eventual conclusion.
How am I supposed to live with this knowledge? ..every lecture I will be subjected to the same irritant, the standard "Einstein tells us there are three dimensions of space and time." This line is often repeated because it seems to be misunderstood then misrepresented.
Maybe Einstein was confused by this and mistakenly related the dimensions of space to time and gravity. Who would have been equipped to perceive, challenge and correct the mistake?
..we also still do not have proofs for gravity and time.
I just managed THREE static electric discharges in a row while typing, new record ..1 1/2 Hz without use of technology nor intention. The old record was one Hz, imagine enough static electric charge to arc, change polarity, arc, change polarity then come back one more time for the third discharge (low humidity).
The physics of winter and cabin fever. The snow settles in, homes are heated, then the torture begins. Every time I touch my laptop with the impulse to compose ..HEY! ..zapped by static electric discharge. This variety of static discharge can be particularly vindictive, TWO static electric discharges in a row. A first big ZAP and the second smaller jolt, just when I thought I had enough, a final jab. A resistor in series to ground should alleviate the impromptu surprises. The following composition expresses the anecdote and summation in a more qualitative way. One has to know "how in the..." does nature allow me to be zapped twice, I needed to know.
Observations: Quantum Tunneling, Anecdotal Perspectives
https://steemit.com/either/@deanpiecka/observations-quantum-tunneling-anecdotal-perspectives