Yes!Perhaps it's why a healer is needed for cystal healing as mentioned by Ra. Another way should be heating. There is only one possible explanation for the anti-inflammation&antipyretic effect of gypsum crystal, heating gypsum in water charging something into 3D, which can be maintained in water. Have no idea what is being charged. Then this water is like antibiotics, can heal febrile diseases. Both technology and human mind can do it.From this analysis, I must also conclude that "consciousness" (the conscious act of observation) can impose charge on a motion, converting it to 3D.

## The Universe as a Tree

### Re: The Universe as a Tree

### Re: The Universe as a Tree

Because heat is a "charge" (thermal vibration) in the time region, it would resolve the 3D time component--not the spatial one. This would not resolve the 3D spatial relations to make the object "collapse" to a particle.

Every dogma has its day...

### Surfaces

Larson, during his analysis of the liquid state, concluded that there is no such thing as "surface tension" that forms a boundary between a liquid and its environment. For example, a drop of water sitting on the table does not squish flat to a 1-molecule high disc--it looks more hemispherical, which is why conventional physics thought there was some kind of invisible "wrapper" around it--surface tension.

Larson's analysis show that it was simply the interaction of two, different states of matter. The gas of the atmosphere versus the liquid of the drop.

Gas has 3 dimensions of freedom in space, which means that the molecules are not gravitationally bound to each other--the gas molecules will just "progress" apart and dissipate, unless contained.

Liquids have only 1 dimension of freedom, which means two spatial dimensions are still bound between molecules. This free dimension allows the structure to move in a 2D form--so the aggregate sticks together, but can alter shape (unlike a solid, with no dimensions of freedom).

Solid: ↓↓↓ (all dimensions having net gravitation)

Liquid: ↓↓↑

Vapor: ↓↑↑

Gas: ↑↑↑ (all dimensions progressing)

Where these meet, the liquid cannot bind to the gas, as the gas has no dimensions that can be locked down. The free dimension in the liquid is the one sitting at the boundary, pointing at the gas. (This also explains why a liquid tends to adhere to a solid--the solid has dimensions that

The same tension that holds a surface together, is actually holding the entire liquid together. The only difference is that free dimension inside the liquid is randomly oriented, whereas on the surface, they all point the towards the gas.

From Larson's liquid state analysis, it can be generalized that

This brings up an interesting option in the 3D, octree (voxel) model--what if you have a 2D entity that is trying to be expressed in a 3D system? A "2D solid" (neutrino) would essentially have the same properties of a

Current atomic models just happen to have "clouds of electrons." Curious.

So it would appear that 1D and 2D structures can be expressed in a 3D system--2D as a liquid-like surface (of no thickness) and 1D as a vapor-like cloud (fog) of lines. Of course, without a full, 3D structure, they could not be resolved by our senses into something observable--and would be

So there are two things that come from this analysis:

Larson's analysis show that it was simply the interaction of two, different states of matter. The gas of the atmosphere versus the liquid of the drop.

Gas has 3 dimensions of freedom in space, which means that the molecules are not gravitationally bound to each other--the gas molecules will just "progress" apart and dissipate, unless contained.

Liquids have only 1 dimension of freedom, which means two spatial dimensions are still bound between molecules. This free dimension allows the structure to move in a 2D form--so the aggregate sticks together, but can alter shape (unlike a solid, with no dimensions of freedom).

Solid: ↓↓↓ (all dimensions having net gravitation)

Liquid: ↓↓↑

Vapor: ↓↑↑

Gas: ↑↑↑ (all dimensions progressing)

Where these meet, the liquid cannot bind to the gas, as the gas has no dimensions that can be locked down. The free dimension in the liquid is the one sitting at the boundary, pointing at the gas. (This also explains why a liquid tends to adhere to a solid--the solid has dimensions that

*can*be locked down.) The remaining two dimensions that are bound together form a 2D topology--a*surface*. There is nothing special about this--it is*not*an independent structure, just a "disjoint" region of dimensional attraction.The same tension that holds a surface together, is actually holding the entire liquid together. The only difference is that free dimension inside the liquid is randomly oriented, whereas on the surface, they all point the towards the gas.

From Larson's liquid state analysis, it can be generalized that

*surfaces occur where there is a difference in dimensional degrees of freedom*.This brings up an interesting option in the 3D, octree (voxel) model--what if you have a 2D entity that is trying to be expressed in a 3D system? A "2D solid" (neutrino) would essentially have the same properties of a

*liquid*--two bound dimensions and one "free" one. By the same logic, a "1D solid" (positron) would have two free dimensions, which would be analogous to Nehru's*vapor*state (cloud-like).Current atomic models just happen to have "clouds of electrons." Curious.

So it would appear that 1D and 2D structures can be expressed in a 3D system--2D as a liquid-like surface (of no thickness) and 1D as a vapor-like cloud (fog) of lines. Of course, without a full, 3D structure, they could not be resolved by our senses into something observable--and would be

*invisible*, yet able to interact. These appear to be expressed as 1D dielectric "line of force" that radiate outward, like a cloud of attraction/repulsion around a charge, and a 2D magnetic "surface of force" that form shells around a magnetic charge. (We express the magnetic force by lines, which is just a piece of graph paper taped to that surface so we can see how the surface moves.)So there are two things that come from this analysis:

- Surfaces appear between motions with differing degrees of freedom.
- Dimensionally incomplete structures are what is showing up as force fields.

Every dogma has its day...