The Sunday Times published on May 8th this year:
Stand by, we may soon enter a new universe: a very good account of “the state of the art” that I ‘circumvented’ – not with ‘theories’ like the string theory that relies on at least eleven dimensions – but with new ‘concepts’ that I have translated into prototype software.
You see, established, ‘institutionalised’ science has evolved from paper-based thinking in universities, institutes and laboratories such as CERN.
“Absolute relativity” of measuring is achieved by
Einstein‘s special relativity relates to the structure of spacetime which should be qualified as “nd spacetime”.
His general relativity relates to the theory of gravitation.
Meter, kilogram, second are the three foundations for the international system of measurements. That means:
Lengths are linear, i.e. an arbitrary attribute by humans and their minds – not a natural given.
Weights are inherently describing 3D materials.
And time is supposed to be the 4th dimension in the 3D universe of Rene Descartes.
But anything we see as our prima sensor of reality is connected with our mind as the accumulator and interpreter of our experiences.
Thus we instantly assess what we see as big or small, heavy or light and derive certain qualities therefrom.
Human perception with its individual scope for interpretation is thus inherent in all measuring, no matter how absolute we’d like it to be…
It’s actually a remarkable field of study: metrology or the science of measuring.
And as most sciences, it’s an art and a technology:
A lot of measures were orginally defined by the human body: hands, feet and arms for lengths.
The measuring devices that are available nowadays are the results of ingenious engineering!
BUT: all measurements have inaccuracies built in which imply a probability for being accurate. I think that’s funny in a way.
For what are measurements for, if not assuring quality?
The main purpose of measurements is comparability. Good apples need to be compared with bad apples by having a number associated with a measuring unit.
Quality is then determined either by having a high or a low number of measuring units. The average in between is the really interesting number, I think.
“3D TimeSpace”? Sounds “unscientific”, a former CERN colleague said.
3D TimeSpace is the conceptual framework for the “3D Metric” Universe. It is the ‘model’ and ‘worldview’ or Weltbild where time and space are united for phenomena to take place in – in eternal evolution and constant change:
3D TimeSpace turns out to be a wonderful concept or construct: a model in which the origin (0,0,0) of a coordinate system à la Descartes
The scale determines the LENGTH units of the coordinates.
And instead of measuring time, MOVEMENT is measured in “3D TimeSpace”.
Movement is measured as SPEED between point A (x1, y1, z1) and point B (x2, y2, z2) in “3D TimeSpace”. But besides measuring along lines, there are waves and other “shapes of movement” that can be used.
All else follows: the idea that everything is connected, that the Universe is coherent, consistent and so intelligent that humans can’t figure it out…
For these humans have been predominantly men who have been using pen and paper, for 2000 years since Greek thinking was replaced by Latin as the dominant language.
Indian scriptures have described what we have experienced as Kali Yuga: the “age of Kali”, “male demon” or Dark Age.
Opinions about the duration of each cycle or Yuga vary. But that we live in “interesting times” is pretty obvious to anybody and, maybe, also the need for a paradigm shift or “conceptual quantum leap” – even if it sounds “unscientific”.
But, actually, the effect of this concept is comparable to the operating system for software: a framework that connects all the parts.
“3D TimeSpace” is thus a conceptual framework for connecting the dots that are each a science in themselves:
Anybody thinking that “3D TimeSpace” is a good idea, please do acknowledge me as the originator. Thanks.
Just as there are measuring units, so there are many other units, man-made or natural:
And then there are man-made units:
Is it conceivable to create one system of thought that brings order into the scientifc chaos of theories?
How come that the Greeks knew how to measure not only earth but also the heavens?
How come that current metrics work either in astronomical or in nano-scales but not both?
And why was Escher fascinated by those geometric structures called polyhedra? What on earth is their significance?
Well, I’ve come up with “3d metric” ideas, concepts and insights that make the connections between
as well as
For Einstein had pointed out the gap:
My “3d metric” approach to image analysis closes this gap: Cassiopeia can be re-visualised with more visual and metric detail,
just as any image at nano-scale and below:
A sample From OmicronNanoTechnology.
The article publishing the Cassiopeia article appeared in SCIENCE in May 2008. I’ve got it as a pdf here.
sabine AT 3d-metrics.com
www.SabineMcNeill.wordpress.com
Association of McKenzie Friends as Public Interest Advocates
