basudeba,
If we challenge fundamental assumptions and propose unfamiliar replacements, however better, we are heretics and rejected a priori. That's the way we humans employ our brains: Rational analysis is too hard work when it conflicts with comfortable assumptions long and well embedded.
I found your essay well constructed, well argued, 'original' (apart from a few thousand years!), adequately on topic and interesting. These are the valid criteria on which essays are judged. I also find the fundamental nature and truth of the 10 dimensions entirely correct and logical.
As you say, it's 'language' that's the problem. We need more words for the varying and non fundamental categories and concepts most are familiar with as 'dimensions'. Some things hide right before our eyes yet can't be distinguished. My own essay deals both with that and the problem in my para 1 above, identifying an important 2nd momentum in OAM which rationalises the failed logic in physics. There are none so blind. But I think and hope you at least will understand and appreciate it.
From your own I pick out some favourite lines;
"Equations do not explain the difference in the properties of water from its constituents. It is true in all reactions. Thus, equations do not give complete information.
Logic is the special proof necessary for knowing the unknown aspects of something generally known. Thus, the validity of a mathematical statement rests with its logical consistency.
Language is the transposition of some information/command on the mind/CPU of another person/operating system.
Generalizing such partial information misleads. Thus, it cannot be the only language of Nature. There is physics beyond mathematics
There is no equation for the observer. Yet, the observer has an important role in physics.
If we re-envision classical and quantum observations as macroscopic overlap of quantum effects, we may solve most problems.
Our galaxy is a miniature universe, which is spinning around its axis like everything else in the universe. This will explain many observations, without invoking any novel phenomena.
In visual perception, where the medium is electromagnetic radiation, we need three mutually perpendicular dimensions corresponding to the electric field, the magnetic field and their direction of motion.
VECTOR SPACE This is not mathematics, but politics, where problems multiply by division. What does it physically mean?
By convention, depending upon the nature of the force, we designate the field as electric field, magnetic field etc. Why complicate it with unnecessary details which has no physical meaning"
Finally I do offer some genuine physical meaning to those last two momenta, which it seems as you suggest, are inherently 'coupled'.
I'd like to discuss your view on inertial frames, my proposition of invalidity of Cartesian 'frame' systems, and fractals with respect to galaxies and universes, and the inherent Hindu assumption of eternal recycling, which you may have seen my published paper on.
Very well done. Be aware a rise up the local scale is imminent.
Best wishes
Peter
