INTRODUCTION
When first I started to think about how science and religion interacted, I found it extremely difficult to make the leap of faith necessary to accept that there was but one God and that all things were created by this God.
My problem is that science keeps moving the boundaries.
In early times man worshiped the bringer of light. As the sun rose high in the sky and as seasons changed so man worshiped the bringer of heat and light giving thanks and making some token sacrifice to ensure a good season.
Pagan festivals acknowledged the passing of the shortest day of the year and the beginning of the next era for crop growing and warmth and longer days. But gradually these simple but understandable truths were overwhelmed by knowledge, teachings and greater faiths and the belief in the ‘one God’.
With the belief in one God came the idea that mankind would look to the skies for guidance and divine influence. But with learning and development even the sky became a place of mind-blowing expanse as the sky gave up its secrets to satellites, rockets and telescopes.
As mankind’s knowledge and the ability to look further and further from home – even backwards in time by studying light and x-ray images from stars and galaxies from which the light that reaches us is as old as time itself, so the place that was reserved for a God became more and more inconceivable.
For me this became something of a logic puzzle. How could all that we are learning; all the laws and physical proofs be reconciled into one immutable argument that would be robust enough to stand against the ever pervasive and persuasive arguments of physics and maths and how could even this leave room for religious beliefs?
My thinking led me to propose the existence of a dimensional environment based outside of our rules of physics, not in our space – time but within which our existence could be explained, maintained and within which the physical laws being proved and hypothesized would stand. My thinking also created a solution to the question of where a God may have started all the work that became the universe, as we know it.
What follows is an exploration of the this alternative dimension, as I see it, with some explanation of how what we know, scientifically to be true, can be maintained and accommodated without breaking the laws of physics. Indeed, some of the mysteries that confound scientists can be reasoned away by applying this model.
My writing is likely to be simplistic and yet involved, contentious and controversial and yet I believe that many will sit back and take comfort from the ideas that are being outlined here, finding satisfaction in the opportunities that my idea offers for the expansion of our thinking and the space this rationale lends to the development and redevelopment of ideas.
My thanks to Brian Page who saw enough potential in my original musings, on this subject, to publish them in the MENSA magazine back in March 2005.
INDIVIDUAL DIMENSIONS
1
When my children were growing, we had a family tradition whereby we would all sit down to a proper Sunday lunch.
Sunday lunch times were a family gathering where all four of us would join together and enjoy a full meal, taking time and pleasure in each other’s company.
Amongst the many topics for discussion during these extended meal times would be debate on the ‘big bang’. We would explore the concept that the universe was created by a singularly massive explosion and that the expulsion of gases and matter became the raw ingredients for the universe, as we know it. We would compare this with the writings of the Bible within which it is written that the world was created over a six day period, with the seventh day being the day of rest.
We explored both arguments without ever reaching a satisfactory solution as to how the two arguments of the big bang and the six day creation fitted together.
Often our debate would become disjointed when we tried to work out what it was that went bang in the first place.
Indeed, scientists today maintain that a lot of what is calculated to have been created by the ‘big bang’ cannot now be accounted for. In other words confidence is high that something went bang but there appears to be insufficient residue to support the quantity or the magnitude of the blast that has been calculated.
We would also debate light speed and the scientifically maintained argument that nothing can travel faster than light. Here our questions were about our ability to detect light and other radiations and that perhaps it was simply our inability to detect things that travel faster than light. Logic here explored the idea that a being who could not observe light, whose entire experience of things, was focussed not in the light and radio and microwave limitations known by us, but to sound and sonic emissions. For these beings, nothing faster than sound would be conceivable or measurable. Would they, therefore, conclude that nothing could travel faster than the speed of sound?
We would discuss what held the molecules together, the variable force of gravity, black holes, religion in-fact anything and everything that was to enter our heads.
It is from these debates that the questions started to join together in my head. Could all the scientific postulations be held within one bigger theory? Could some of the current scientific mysteries be resolvable within one all embracing model? Is it conceivable that our reluctance to look outside of the models that are currently used to define our universe is holding us back?
Read on and judge for yourself.
2
How do we explain dimensions to each other? Most of us can appreciate the difference between a ball being thrown towards us and the risk of it hitting us or the pleasure to be had from catching the ball when compared with watching the same action on a TV screen, but how do we describe this phenomenon?
How would a person who exists in an entirely two dimensional (TV type) environment even begin to understand a third dimension?
Can we comprehend the relationships between three and two dimensions and, if we can, is it reasonable to assume that there are similar relationships between two dimensions and one dimension?
It is this understanding that will open our minds to the alternative dimensional environment that can I believe can co-exist with what we hold dear and true.
As we have already suggested, there can be few people that struggle to differentiate between a two-dimensional and a three dimensional world.
In a three dimensional world we can experience up, down, forward, backward left and right. We can explore this environment in any combination of these six opportunities and can go over, under, round even through spaces and objects.
We can enjoy spirals, spheres and roller coasters. We can stack things up and then stack things next to the first pile and then put another stack in front.
We can dig holes, piling the earth next to the hole and we can walk round the hole to admire our work. While we are digging, a bird might fly over our heads and these things are completely natural and taken for granted.
Pictures, on the other hand, are two-dimensional. Everything exists within a flat plane. In just the same way, a television screen is a flat or near flat surface upon which an image is crafted to give the illusion of three dimensions. The illusion of depth is shattered the moment you try to reach through the screen to grasp something that is displayed as ‘set back’ or behind.
Mirrors display a three dimensional world but the whole reflection is held upon a flat sheet of glass with a reflective surface. It is possible to see an object that appears a good distance behind the mirror but impossible to grasp that item as seen in the reflection.
Now consider for a moment that your world is two-dimensional; flat is everything.
In a flat world of just two dimensions the movements available are reduced from six directions to just four. They maybe forward backward left and right but they could just as easily be up, down, left and right. They could be forward, backward, up and down.
What cannot happen is that a two dimensional world allow that anything in it can have four directions that require a move that lifts it from the surface of the two dimensional plain.
Let’s explore this in more detail.
Suppose that a picture is standing on a table. The picture maybe propped from behind so that the picture slopes back slightly to keep it from toppling forward. Anything that was limited to an existence on the flat front of the picture would be able to move all over the picture glass. It would never be able to push through the glass and it would not be aware that there was anything remote from the surface of the glass. Indeed, if the picture was moved, even laid on its face the object that exists on the picture glass would have no knowledge that anything had moved.
Similarly, anything that existed on the tabletop would be equally constrained. It would have access to the entire surface of the table but even if it encountered and recognised an obstruction at the base of the picture frame, it would have no idea that the picture towered above it because it doesn’t know ‘up’ any more than it knows ‘down’.
We have just compared how limited a two dimensional environment is when compared with a three dimensional environment. We have also demonstrated that there are an infinite number of plains within a three dimensional environment upon which two-dimensional environments can exist.
It is like comparing a cargo ship afloat on the ocean with a submarine. The ship is compelled to operate on the surface where, in the same ocean, the submarine can choose to mimic the directions of the ship above it but at any depth available to it.
Let’s now look at a one-dimensional world.
In a world of one dimension we lose two more of the directions so that in a one-dimensional world everything exists in a straight line. Only two directions are available to the one-dimensional world they can be up and down or left and right they can be only two opposing directions. There is no perceivable curve or change of direction possible from within the one-dimensional world.
In just the same way as we saw that there can be any number of different plains of existence for two dimensional worlds within a three dimensional environment, we can see that one dimensional worlds can exist in a line laid on the surface of any two dimensional plain.
Imagine that you are a tube. You are a long straight cylinder.
You have the ability to travel forward sliding, worm-like through your world. You can stop and you can slide backwards. If you have the misfortune to collide with anything that you cannot get through you are bound to stay or reverse direction. For you there is no such thing as a change of direction to move left right up or down because your world is a forward backward world.
There may be other tubes that exist very close to you. If they are parallel to you then you can never know of each other because you will never cross paths. One could move across your line of sight but if it were just slightly off your line then you would never know.
For each of the dimensional existences we have described so far, we have explored movement but what if movement is of no consequence?
What if you have no perception of up, down, ahead, behind, left or right? What if everything you know is contained within. Closed like a mirrored bubble from which you cannot see out?
It should not be too difficult to extend this argument now to a world without any perceivable direction relative to the other worlds; where compared to the three dimensional environment where there were combinations perceivable in six possible directions; where, in a two dimensional environment there were combinations of movement in four directions and where, in a one dimensional environment there were two possible directions of movement. It is entirely consistent with this line of reasoning that there can be an environment which does not move relative to the one, two or three dimensional worlds.
3
Having considered dimensions, it is time to start bending some of the rules a little.
We hear of scientists who talk about ‘bending’ space and we hear of suggestions whereby great distances maybe traversed across space if we fold space.
To be honest, this seems a little too much of a stretch to comprehend. However, if we take a look at the one-dimensional world we might be able to get some idea of what is being suggested.
In a one-dimensional world there are only two directions which, for convenience we’ll label forward and backward.
Any movement in this environment is limited so that it can travel forward at any speed or backward at any speed. Travel maybe unlimited and if there were intelligent beings that existed within this environment they might prove that their existence is without boundary.
We might compare this world with the inside of a fibre-optic cable.
Life inside a fibre-optic cable is bright and without limitation. Any pulses of light that are transmitted through a fibre-optic cable are constrained, without any input from the sides of the cable. Similarly, as the light shoots along the inside of the cable, none gets out. The light bounces around inside this tube forever moving along at colossal speed completely isolated from the very similar cables bundled with it and wound around it.
The reflective surfaces of the cable ensure that light gets bounced around inside without losing it’s message and whilst from the inside there is still only forwards or backwards, we can look at the cable from the outside and we can bend it and shape it how so ever we please. Indeed, if the fibre-optic cable were fashioned into a very large circle, anything that was travelling within it might never ‘know’ it was travelling in a circle.
We can apply similar logic to the two dimensional environment.
Imagine that the two dimensional environment is a piece of paper. For this example we will consider that something near to one corner of the paper has become aware of the enormity of its universe and wishes to traverse the sheet of paper.
From within the two dimensions the distance across the paper is vast but we can see that by rolling the paper or folding the paper, the object wishing to reach the other end of the sheet can be put in contact with the other end in an instant.
If we were to really play with the science of a two dimensional paper world from the vantage point of three dimensions we would fashion a piece of flat paper into the form of a Mobius strip.
A Mobius strip, named after the German mathematician Mobius, is where a sheet of paper has both ends joined together to form a continuous loop, but only after one end has been turned through 180 degrees. (A twist)
The resultant loop has just one traceable edge and just one traceable surface.
Now lets re visit the one-dimensional world within the fibre-optic cable.
We have demonstrated that from inside this cable there is only forward and backward but we also talked of the light bouncing off the inside surface of the fibre-optic cable. This demonstrates that although there is only forward or backwards available to this dimension, from within the dimension movement is perceived as being more complex than has been described. Light travelling along the inside of the tube cannot experience that it is changing direction but as the tube bends so the light is compelled to hit the edge and be re-directed to remain within its dimension.
This range of movement, so inconsequential when compared against the available movement in a truly three dimensional environment, gives the impression of complete freedom from within the lesser dimensions.
In the environment which has no directional movement when compared to the three, two or even one dimensional environments, it is possible that things move, that the space contained within the point is perceived as being without boundary as if infinite.
4
Inter-dimensional relationships.
We have considered the perceived ranges of movement in three, two, one and no movement dimensions. We have also explored the idea that when looking at a dimension smaller than the one in which we live, there appears to be very limited opportunity for movement in the ‘lesser’ dimensions.
We have also explored the notion that, from within a dimension, it may appear that there is no restriction of movement.
Things become quite surreal when we consider how the various dimensions interact. When we consider what happens when there is conflict or contact between the occupants of dimensions that exist even only one dimension apart.
INTER-DIMENSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
1
Lets start with two dimensions.
When we first considered the two dimensional existence, everything on one flat plain, we considered the picture glass framed and standing and a desk.
We considered the fact that two parallel surfaces would allow that neither would ever meet and that neither would ever know of the other.
Similarly, neither the picture nor the desk could know of each other except at the very margin where the desk and the picture frame actually touch.
Two-dimensional plains can intersect and where the plains intersect is a line of contact. At this line, both plains will be aware of each other but neither will be able to discern any part of the other that is not within its own area of perception.
[Illustration required]
Indeed, a single disc offering two dimensions could be intersected in several places by similar plains all of which intersect at different angles.
[Illustration required]
If we consider how that intersection would appear on the surface of a two-dimensional plain; the only ‘visible’ evidence of the other plain would be where the two surfaces intersect. Remember, there is no up or down relative to either plain. If the two plains are, in fact, moving relative to each other then the ‘visible’ disturbance will travel across each plain but only be visible at the point of intersection and rather than being able to predict when the disturbance is likely to start and stop (easy if you can see up and down) only the fact that there is a disturbance will be recordable.
If we explore now how a one dimensional being might perceive the arrival of a two dimensional environment we can get the idea that only what is happening directly in-front of, or behind, our one dimensional being will be perceivable thus if the one dimension ‘cylinder’ is passing through a two dimensional ‘disc’ then only the point within the perceivable frame will be recordable. There is no left right up or down so within the frame of reference that is a one dimensional existence something simply arrived – stayed a while – and left.
Similarly, where the one dimension crossed the two dimensional plain something arrived, stayed a while and left but from the frame of reference on the two dimensional plain, the ‘event’ was something that could be manoeuvred around. Rather like a tree in a field.
Where a two dimensional plain or a one dimensional cylinder encounter a closed point – like the mirrored bubble – then, from the frame of reference within the point something arrives – stays a while and then departs. From the closed point it is not possible to tell whether the visit was from a one or a two or even a three dimensional environment because only the point of contact is discernable and nothing of the shape or form of the ‘visitor’ can be determined.
Beings from a three-dimensional environment can look at these interactions from any direction. They can see all points of contact. They can calculate duration of contact. They can move around so that contact can be observed from any direction. For beings in a three dimensional environment there is no mystery about these intersections because all is visible to them.
Intersections with a two dimensional plain can be explored by moving around them but never by looking up or down thus a line of intersection can be explored as can the effects of a cylindrical one dimensional intersection.
While the closed ‘point’ is in-line with the cylinder or within the plain of a disc it can perceive their presence and each of the two environments can perceive that it is there, but only within the frames of reference we have described here.
The theory
The planet maintains a ‘fresh water constant’ of around 68,000,000,000 tons.
Maintaining this fresh water constant can impact on the concentrations of minerals and pollutants in the oceans affecting marine life and the ecosystem as a whole.
Stored water, (ice), is the earth’s resource with which the oceanic balances can be maintained thus allowing the fresh water constant to be maintained.
The human population is expanding and this expansion is taking up large amounts of water.
As the human population expands water is being taken out of the water cycle to make it possible for our bodies to exist.
At the current rate of population growth 3,000,000 tons of water is being removed from the earth’s water system annually.
Water is being removed, not for drinking but simply because our bodies are almost 80% water.
About water
Water is finite and to a large extent fixed as a commodity on this planet.
Water exists in three states, Vapour, water and ice.
There is a water cycle that means oceanic water evaporates (as do lakes etc) clouds form, weather moves clouds to land masses. Rising clouds chill and water distils into droplets, which fall as rain, providing moisture to flora and fauna and refreshing the land. Water eventually finds its way through the land to water courses into rivers and back to the sea.
Water is retained by life, aquifers, soil and in ice.
326,000,000 cubic miles is the total of all water available to planet earth. Of which less than 1% is in the atmosphere and just over 4% available as fresh water in lakes, rivers and as ice.
1 cubic mile of water is equivalent to 4.168 cubic kilometres.
1 cubic kilometre weighs 1,000,000,000 tons. Therefore there is 1,358,768,000,000 tons of water in, on under the surface of planet earth.
Only 67,938,400,000 tons of which are available for farming, drinking and to support life.
The Earth
Our planet is regarded, by many, as being a self-balancing system. Physical properties check and balance one-another to create equilibriums.
The world can maintain a balance in a number of different states. It is possible for the world to remain in balance as a cold planet, a temperate planet and a hot planet.
Ice ages are the cold state, essentially desert represents the hot state. We currently enjoy a temperate state.
Global warming suggests the world is leaving its temperate state.
Water / land levels have been much different from what is experienced today.
During the ice ages, much of land was covered by water in its solid – ice – state. Vegetation was less and there were fewer mammals.
Temperate regions were away from the poles. Desert areas were few. The oceans were full of life.
Today, ice is melting, tundra is thawing, deserts are expanding we have had vast forested areas which are in decline often because of felling.
Weather is becoming more extreme.
If the planet has a self regulating system it would seem that these extremes – to us – are the planetary attempts to retain the current, temperate, state.
When there was a surplus of water, the planet took it up and stored it as ice.
Maintaining the constant of 68,000,000,000 tons of ‘fresh’ water is causing oceanic changes and large land areas are experiencing drought. Clearly the planet is resisting a shortage of water, which means that the planetary stores of ice are having to be released to the ecosystem.
Ice is melting.
The release of water into the ecosystem is a good thing as, ultimately, a wetter (fresh water) environment supports more land/air based life. However, the ice is mostly being released into the oceans with the amount of water available to land, rivers, flora and fauna remaining fairly constant if not always falling where expected or in the amounts to which we have become accustomed.
The human component
There are a number of natural and man-made pollutants that are affecting our atmosphere but one factor that has not been recorded – to my knowledge – is the effect of a vastly expanding population of humans on the planet’s water balance.
Almost 80% of the human body is water.
The average human weighs about 50kg (worldwide and all ages and health states)
40kg of each human is water. Each human has extracted from the environment 40 litres of water just to exist. This has nothing to do with consumption over time. It is the amount of water that has been extracted from the environment as cells grow to make a person.
After death, decomposition or cremation will allow the body to release that water back to the environment.
There are 6,600,000,000 people on the planet, which means that there are 6.6billion times 40 litres of water removed from the environment’s water cycle.
This means 264,000,000,000 litres of water (264 million tons) is walking crawling, driving cars, filling nappies, farming, building and growing as you read this.
That is 264,000,000,000 litres of water not available to the planetary ecosystem purely because people have been born. This figure does not include water retained for other forms of life.
Currently the world population is growing at the rate of 76,000,000 people each year, which means that each year a further 3,000,000 tons of water will be removed from the ecosystem. (76,000,000 times 40 divided by 1,000)
Water retained within human bodies cannot be available for rain, rivers, oceans, or for drinking.
If the population of humans continues to grow at the rate demonstrated today 76,000,000 each year, (it won’t because more people will create even more people so the rate of population increase will increase) then there will be no water left for drinking, for rivers for farming or to support land based life in just 20,000 years.
Checks and balances
In fact, the global system won’t allow that to happen. Instead, if the rain cycle can be maintained, there will be an increase in the concentration of salt and mineral deposits and pollutants in the oceans as water evaporates and is held in the atmosphere to create rain and to feed rivers.
In a global temperate state approximately the same amount of water will be available as fresh water regardless of the amount of water taken up by life. That figure stands at about 68,000,000,000 tons.
It is entirely conceivable that water, with its unique properties (of being at its most dense in a liquid state at 4 degrees centigrade, of being stable in three distinct states vapour, water and ice), is the primary regulator in the self-balancing of the planet earth.
The increasing concentrations of salt and other minerals in the world’s oceans could have a big impact on oceanic life affecting food sources, food cha