©2016 - A Metaphysical Thesis by - Jack McNally
Creation | Existence | Nothing | Dimensions | Infinity | Space | Time | BigBang | Life | Death | Links

Subdimensions

There is a point within the microcosm at which the precepts of classical mechanics seem to break down. In the realm of the very small it seems two elemental particles - bosons - can occupy the same place at the same time. Some things can even occupy more than one location, others can move from one position to another without traversing the space between. Louis Carroll couldn't have imagined a world more curious, but in reality there is a simple explanation - the laws of nature that apply to subdimensions.

In most cases, two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time (this is why we have automobile insurance). Obviously that law only pertains to three dimensional space because when one entity comes into contact with another there is a two dimensional region - the site of contact - at which both share a set of points in common. It is an area, a two-dimensional derivative of a three-dimensional reality in which the properties of two separate entities define a region with its own distinct set of attributes. One side has the qualities of one entity, the other side has the qualities of the other entity - and there is no distance between the two sides. This region is a perfect example of emergent properties, but it isn't a separate existence, it is a confluence of the properties of both existences.

If you slap a third entity up against their common boundary, a one-dimensional 'linear' derivative will be defined by three sets of attributes. And if you cap it with a forth element - a NON-dimensional 'point' (no size - only a location) will be defined by the properties of all four independent entities.

If an entity is completely enveloped in an ethereal environment (space), the qualitative value at the region shared between that entity and the space in which it rests is governed by the properties of the entity and the properties of the space which surrounds it. If a particle of space is displaced by a particle of material, then the condition of the entity at its surface is REDEFINED (ditto the other particle, but we will concentrate on the initial entity for now). That region of surface area is no longer defined as 'entity in contact with space', it is defined as 'entity in contact with matter'. The properties which co-mingle within that region have qualitative 'inertia' and both entities struggle to maintain their state of being by dominating the two-dimensional area they share at their periphery.

When a warm body comes into contact with a cold body, the warm body cools and the cold body warms. In an isolated system this process will continue until both bodies achieve the same temperature. In effect, there is a battle going on in the region of contact where each body strives to maintain its state of being - its 'inertia' - as the condition at its surface is dynamically redefined by its companion. The temperature at the point of contact will obviously be the average between the two bodies and for the warm body to maintain temperature at its surface it would have to change its internal nature in such a way as to supply heat while the cooler body would have to change its nature in order to absorb heat. Each simply acts upon and reacts to the other - changing and being changed - until their temperatures level out and the temperature differential between them is nil

The phenomenon of change is driven by the dynamics of the properties of two (or more) qualitative values in direct contact with each other. Each changes its condition in such a way as to minimize and eventually eliminate the differential between them.

The phenomenon of gravity may, indeed, be the explained by this process of reciprocal alteration. We know that when two masses floating in space approach each other, the space between them shrinks. Conventional wisdom assumes the masses are acting upon each other and disregards the more obvious possibility: THE SPACE BETWEEN THEM IS SHRINKING. Scientists love to study things that have the property of mass. They are easy to measure. Unfortunately most of the Universe masslessly defies analysis. Matter is condensed, its density is measurable. Space is ethereal, its density is immeasurable. Is it possible that space, itself, contracts when it comes into contact with matter? And if two material objects are in proximity, would this not draw them together? Space condensation would act just like the 'space-time warp' of Einsteinian theory, but it's a much simpler concept to ponder.

Nuclei are quite common in the physical world and it would not be so far fetched to imagine that each entity has a nucleus - a center of being through which all of the interdependent subqualities act and react. In fact, the effect of this sub-dimensional feature could well explain some of the strange behavior often observed within the microcosm. A nucleus would be a true point (just a location with no relative size) that projects opposing subqualities into three dimensional space. If the position of the nucleus were to change - say rotate 90 degrees - no distance would be traversed and no time would lapse. All of the subqualities generated by the nucleus would instantly be shifted - moved from one position to another without traversing any distance. Such morphing or rearranging of the substructure may produce some of those weird and seemingly impossible effects which puzzle contemporary physicists. Mass is a condition, a property that can be converted by releasing energy. Some portion of an entity may have that property while the rest of it does not. With the ability to change instantly, a portion of an entity's substructure which has the property of 'mass' may suddenly disappear and simultaneously reappear elsewhere without any motion taking place. This would give rise to the illusion that the 'mass' has no real location and can only be given a probability of existing at any given coordinate. The phenomenon of morphing could also give the illusion that some sub-structural facet can be in in two different states or locations simultaneously - i.e. 30% in one location and 70% in another. Such phenomena have been regularly observed in the microcosm and many theoretical physicists attribute them to the existence of extra dimensions.

E=mc2 is the simplified form of an equation given to us by Albert Einstein to describe the relationship between energy and mass. Translated into words, it says the amount of change - or energy (E) - that we may expect a material to be able to produce is directly proportional to it's mass (m) and the square of the speed of light - c2. It is certainly a very useful formula; however, in order for it to work, the subject must have the property of mass. But what about things which have no mass? Keep in mind that mass is a condition that can be converted by simply releasing energy. Things with mass occupy a tiny fraction of the volume of the cosmos. Mass and energy are just two forms of the same thing much like ice and steam. When mass is converted into non-mass within an element a forceful change of condition occurs and that change chain reacts, propagating into its environment in the form of 'energy' as a result.

Motion of an ethereal substance through space would certainly produce change - but would it require energy? The subject would have to displace whatever lies in front of it and this change would certainly take an instance of time (t). Mr. Einstein's equation may be accurate, but it is incomplete. It addresses only the special case of things which have the attribute of mass. I wonder if an equation which addresses the phenomenon of change in both material and ethereal substances might finally resolve the issue of that pesky imaginary number:

Continue
Or click here to comment