Consider the books 'Cosmic View; The Universe in 40 Jumps' by Kees Boeke (1957 - the original inspiration for the others), 'Sizing Up the Universe: The Cosmos in Perspective' by Gott, J. Richard and Vanderbei, Robert J (2010); the videos 'Cosmic Zoom' (https://www.nfb.ca/film/cosmic_zoom/) and 'Powers of Ten' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0) and the interactive website by the Huang brothers (Cary & Michael) 'The Scale of the Universe' and 'The Scale of the Universe 2' (https://scaleofuniverse.com/). These are all examples of travels along the continuum of scale. Scale is an agreed upon characteristic of space - an agreed upon continuum of space.

In many ways scientific knowledge and disciplines break up along this continuum of scale.

It is a continuum along which we see different objects - hence locating an object requires identifying the scale of the object - atoms, molecules, proteins, cells, organs, animals, ecosystems, weather, planets, solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters.

It is, therefore, insufficient to say we only need three coordinates to locate an object in space - we actually need four. Why is this continuum not considered a dimension of space? As an example of what we may be missing using our current 3-D model of space: How can we measure the full distance from the surface of the sun to an atom in a pen on the table next to us? The only method we have is to abstract the objects to locations at the same scale (eg. the center of mass of the sun) and use this 3-D location. However, if space is (at least) four-dimensional, then we could have left out the distance across scale.

Maybe we do not have the appropriate tools to measure across scale - in which case we would have to resort to such actions as forcing all distance measurements to be at the same level of scale.

Why do objects in the universe need to be identified by their scale - yet this is not considered a requirement of locating a position in space?