However:
> A "dimension" is an axis, not a universe,
I don't think you should be so absolutest about that. How do you know that what we think of as "the universe" doesn't live entirely in a 3+1 dimensional subspace of some larger universe ?
I do suggest you watch this video from Carl Sagan's TV show Cosmos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0WjV6MmCyM
Yes, but adding an extra dimension to a given space (more correctly stated as asserting that a space of dimension d is embedded in a space of dimension d + 1) vastly expands the "number" of points that are available, so adding a dimension doesn't just give you access to an additional d-space but to a whole continuum of other d-spaces. I think this is what people are referring to when they use the word "dimension" in this kind of context.
Moreover, I don't care about what people think they're saying with their crap terminology. I demand actual accuracy, or at minimum precisely delimited uncertainty, from people taking millions of dollars in government funding to write about aliens. This is not too much to ask. (You do remember the context, right? Evaluating the credibility of a purportedly factual report written under a government contract, not a bar debate about cosmology)
Using the word "interdimensional", rather than something more precise, smells like bullshit. Specifically, it sounds more like pop scifi than actual science. A "dimension" is an axis, not a universe, and I expect someone writing a serious document for the government about anything, much less ETI, to use the word correctly.Then again, I've been disappointed before. Anyway, I'm holding open the possibility that the whole BAASS thing is the biggest, most embarrassing contracting boondoggle of all time.