Okay, enough of the humor. I really wanted to know why everyone uses the word, 'dimension,' as in three dimensions or even eleven dimensions when they are describing infinite space? I thought dimensions were attributes (length x width x height) of solid, finite objects. Wouldn't it be more descriptive to use the word, directions, when describing the attibutes of space? Even Bradly Jay uses the word, dimension, to describe the three attributes of space as though it were finite.
I don't think it was an accident that we have three directional space to set three-dimensional objects into. A perfect fit every time.
Well, that was just a passing thought, but I wanted to ask a better question:
Is an object moving in space having an un-interrupted journey (smooth) or is the object just changing spacial coordinates in a jerky-like motion, but in increments so tiny that it can't be physically observed, vibrating (the moving object disappearing) beyond the quantum and coming back in another location? Like the frames on a movie film which, when rolling, have the appearance of smooth motion only because of the after-images we have in our mind merges in synch with the appearance of the next frame which was actually in a different location before it was projected.
Please bear with me on this. I'm completely void of knowledge and technical terms in this field except for the few books I've read. And 'C' from where I come from is usually followed by the word, note. Thanks.
No, I'm not stringing you along here, for I think the bungee string may account for the snapping back and forth between 'dimensions' -- the end of the pendulum I've been stalking. Heh.
As far as the motion, if it refers to an living object moving, then the motions would be jerky, just because of the molecular shape of muscles and how they operate. As far as motion of an object through space, where it was merely momentum carrying it a distance, I would venture to guess that the movements would be smooth on a scale of Macro-time (what we percieve) but on a micro-scale that there is some jerkiness. It all depends on if the universe can be divided smaller than strings, onto infinity. If it can, then motion would be smooth, otherwise, both time, and motions would be jerky. Come to think of it, it would be smooth to all perceptions, whether we could observe the motions individually, because if we are living in the time reference that the motion is being observed in, then we would not see time skip, and therefore we would miss the pauses in motion that accompany the pauses in timeflow.
If this makes no snense, then its just because I'm rambling and it has turned into a train-of-thought writing style.