Scale-Independent Measuring

Numbers are quantifiers. They quantify (count) SI Measuring Units. These, however, rely on:-

• physical phenomena based on electricity, magnetism and light;
• the speed of light being measured in
  • 3D Space:
    • metres [basic space unit “1”] per second [basic time unit “1”];
    • kilometres [x 1000] per hour [x 3600];
  • ‘4D’ Time:
    • astronomical units per day [x 86,400 seconds];
    • parsecs [unit of 1D length] per year [x 31,557,600 seconds];
• space to be 3D – measured in 1D metres¹, 2D metres², 3D metres³;
  • my “Dimensional Digital Number” alternative is:
    • 1¹, 1², 1³ as 3D space units or “Shapes of Magnitude in Space”
    • and geo-metric “Shapes of Movement and Motion” for quantifying time;
• time to be the 4^th dimension – measured in seconds, minutes or hours;
  • in 3D space, a dimension is orthogonal [perpendicular, i.e. 90⁰ or horizontal or vertical];
  • the question is, once again, one of definition.

Can my concepts of “3D Numbers” and “3D NumberSpace” in conjunction with “3D TimeSpace” [as opposed to nD spacetime] become acceptable models for independence of scale and phenomenon?

My “Smart Knowledge” software has already been private proof of concept.

NEXT: Enhancing Visualisation Technologies by Digital Number Concepts