Sorry, i really knew what you meant,
but am trying to smooth the lingo we use to proper geometry terms(self included);
that cross into and re-verify in other things, and more tangibly.
Not to be word picky, but to focus on force flow and correct imagery of what we are dealing with.
>>to see most clearly what is going on, so consistently, even extending to other things all around as nothing unique.
So, prefer to see a full 'axle', not just a half axle(of 1 side) for axises(sorry, tree folk tend not to use formal plural axes in writing..)
>>so axle, implies balance side to side to me; from other lessons all around this.
.
Most all my references are to force loaded, not tying mode prescriptions.
On a force line/column , i look for 1 linear direction from a source point
>>like gravity loaded weight ball that could/has capacity to fall to ground (like a positive charge)
For axis, i look for the Equal & Opposite resistance against delivered squarely on that same line, but opposing direction to constitute axis
>>an opposing column against, a complete force set that may stop/control movement
>>whereby force line is 1 sided and must move
2 directions of lines , but opposing on single column/line.
>>But this single axis AND dimension, are not (as) side force stable tho..
.
Tri-axial to me is more like tripod support or 3 x 120degree increments of rope support holding lower weight ball very well to position
>>as can now take some side force in the now non-Single dimension support>>very critical change to note.
Whereby , B'fly loaded straight thru Starts, with eye pull across is against the main force axis of SParts.
But, a rose is a rose by any other name all the same;
>>except when try to take our 'lingo' and match to all else/other fields and lose connection/continuity and understanding
>>AND perhaps be more inviting, as more consistent to those other disciplines as well to join in this party/study.
As so like, i see 2 dim support/more side force stable constitution in 3 arcs on host as opposed to 1/mono or 2/linear arc 1 dimensional support lendings of not so stable against sideForce.
.
We tend to think in simpler straight line models of non-sideForce, non-radial forces
But the big joke on us is that in linear force persisting in 1 direction,
>>and randomly choosing another of the other 359 degree directions as choice against initial loading direction
>>only gives 1 in 359 chance of no sideForce/radial implications! (.0027 chance /pretty poor odds!)
>>doubles to 1 in 180 .005555.. chance if moving away from load/ruling out towards load as not support(half of 1%'r rule)
So, say again, that purely line defines more as a unique non-side force/non-radial
>>more so than sideForce/radials define as nonLinear , for they just exclude the single, unique line from all else
>>as linear support that we imagine/see most easily is much less than a 1%'r, as so unique vs. all others!
So, always look for the sideForce, as the magician's other hand that can fool
>>if is unique instance of inline, still ref w/Zer0 placeholder, as circumstance is so unique
>>not to make Ancient's mistake of empty/null non-numbers as Zer0
>>no telling what else they would have come up with if found Zer0 2 millenniums earlier!!
.
To my models, even if not PHYSICALLY/viewable as pure inline against load as physical axis
>>in passive/responding control against active loading imposed
>>the cosine lends a VIRTUAL/invisible force line against load to complete axis of 'competition' squarely against each other load/support.
As the load requires to not further displace against any other space; other than present/existing position
.
Once again, some of this perhaps small quibble chatter/matter of alignment to each other more easily so pivotally close to home
>>can make own 'deals'/lingo on our island; but not so much to big sea of all else around to expand understanding
>>and be more inviting as common language to chance passer bys to draw them in/stay longer as inherently more relevance.
