Channelers

Black Holes

Black holes are interesting things and have caused a huge amount of theories and speculations. Now we more or less are certain about what it takes to create one, how to look for them and how they work in general. Detailed workings of the inside of the black hole (the object itself) as well as what happens beyond it’s horizon. The horizon is the area around the black hole that’s no longer visible as the gravity there is so strong that not even light can espace - it's actually a lot bigger than the diameter of mass that caused it or the hole itself and often when one refers to a black hole they mean the hole and it’s horizon.
Click here to read the Wikipedia article on black holes.

These exotic objects have also given rise to derivative theories which deal with the theoretical inverse of a simplified black hole, the 'white hole' or texts about wormholes and what might happen if you were to travel throug a black hole. At this point i will already say that neither of these are possibile in my model of reality, but i'll mention them here as there are some similar elements between wormholes and channelers.

White Holes

In general i like to devide the theories in two kinds. One kind explains the white hole as an exit point of a system that exists out of a black hole and a white hole, where the black one sucks up matter and the white one expells it again in a completely different area of space. This assumes the existence of somekind of connection between two holes, not always the same as a wormhole, though there are a lot of similarities. The other kind takes a more mathematical or purely physical approach and to me, it's in essence nothing but a mathematical model. It's not because there's a working mathematical model, that it also exists in reality. Math is not always right. The math here can be as simple as only reversing the direction of time (without proving that this is even possible). Sometimes unexplainable parts are simply referred to as 'singularities', using the term as a catch-all phrase for holes in the theory.

Singularities are often used as points in space where physics don't act like we expect them to act, however, we don't know everything about physics and several theories use the term in a way that suggests that nature/reality made a mistake here. This is a rather arrogant point of view, though a bit understandable. I don't want to make it sound as i think that all these theories are therefore useless, far from. Even purely mathematical models have a great purpose, if only for sparking interest in new ways of thinking about and approaching problems, but they should never be seen as more than models and not representations of reality until proven so.

Click here to read the Wikipedia article on white holes.

Wormholes (also Einstein-Rosen Bridge).

Wormholes and related 'topological' theories that use the graphical representation of space-time continuum are things i'm very sceptic about. However, they're insanely interesting and mindbending concepts. Using the graphical representation is often too limited as it uses far more dimensions in reality that we can realistically represent, expanding a 2D or 3D model to a 4D or higher doesn't always work since we don'’t have enough dimensions we're familiar with to know for sure in what way 4D relates to 3D. Also i feel that using the simple representation of Einstein’s work has led to incomplete mathematical models. The imagery on the wikipedia page about wormholes shows the visual representation of a wormhole. In essence the curved plane should be seen as 3D space, as such all 3D components in the image should be seen as at least 4D space, but this is not happening or sometimes one refers to 4th dimension only as the time dimension, which is again too limiting in my views.

Wormholes in essence link two areas of space through a shortcut. Travelling from point A (the entry of the wormhole) to point B (the exit) can be done in two ways : either you take the shortest route through 3D space, or you travel through the wormhole. In theories, the wormhole is nothing but the solution to the question : 'what if there is a way to go from A to B and end there faster than using the shortest route through 3D'. This is also the result of the use of singularties, who in the above graphical representation create a deep ditch in the plane and again represents an extra-3-dimensional space or a ditch in the time dimension, hence the theories that say that gravity influences time (this is something i will talk about in a seperate text, for now i will say that i believe that basing the results of time changes on this simplified model are incorrect and the experiments done to prove Einsteins theory are not convincing. However in my model there is a possibile link between time and matter or gravity).

The general wormhole theories are not compatible with my model. I prefer to properly seperate time and space and work from there onwards, this leads to different results and less 'magic' when it comes to time travel and stuff like that, which is nothing but the fiction part of the science-fiction concept.

Multi-dimensional space

Before i start with channelers, first some basic info about my model. This is simplified and not complete as this will be put in far more detail in a seperate text, but the basics are needed to explain channelers. Without going into detail about my idea about the start of the universe (yet another seperate text, to be posted later), i believe that in the initial moments all dimensions were created. At this point it's logical to assume that the universe contains a limited amount of matter and energy and this was created in the past in this birth event. There's a relationship between dimensions as follows : in my model, the universe started out of an elemental unit of space, which was filled (either at once or received over a period of time) with more energy than it could contain, the result was a rapid burst of this elemental energy (aka sub-energy) into one direction, creating the first dimension. Think of this as a barrel of water that under increased pressure will start having water burst through small holes at high velocity.

There are two possible ways how the rest of the dimensions came into being, but looking at the current shape of the universe which is believe to be a flattened ellipsoid, i tend to think in favor of a symmetrical or near symmetrical event. So the above image becomes :

This means that either at the same time, or closely after the first, a second burst appeared, in the opposite direction, but still in the same dimension of the first burst, so the number of dimensions remains the same. This can be explained due to 'force fields' that favor movement in directions of already existing dimensions. Force fields is a simplified term, to be detailed later, the effect will have a similar base to the fact that objects in motion remain in motion and those who are not will remain still unless somekind of force is applied on them, similarly, object will remain in their native dimesions. If this would not have been the case and other dimensional directions were followed by future burst, the universe would not have been as symmetrical in shape is it is now. Again this is a simplified model where i leave out the possibility of ‘rogue’ burst that don’t follow these rules. For the sake of keeping this introduction short i will stick with the purely symmetrical model.

These two bursts were obivously not enough to get rid of the growing or already present subenergy in the initial unit of space, so it burst in other directions, creating a second dimension. Due to the fact that this happens after the initial burst, the first dimension will have grown larger already, so you get something like this :

So the universe looks like this :

This goes on through a 3rd direction or the 3rd dimension :

And the universe will start to look like this :

This is how the universe looks today according to some more traditional theories. What i’m showing with the ellipse and the flattened ellipsoid is available space, matter will spread itself differently. In a proper big bang where matter is thrown outward in all directions equally, you’ll get a sphere at first until there’s no more matter to be thrown out, then you get a hollow, expanding sphere. In the above images, matter will expand like this (in red) :

in 2D :

in 3D :

Available space is just that. This doesn't mean that at that point all this space has been taken in by matter, which is not possible at that point in time. Matter can be seen as the final stage of energy, where the first stage is the framework of the universe that determines its dimensions, the second stage is pure energy and the 3rd stage is matter.
Expansion and dispersion of matter will eventually make the shape of the 'matter universe' come very close to the shape of the 'space universe'. The shape of the space universe will truly be the outer edges for a long time as what you have here is nothing but elemental energy pushing it's way outwards and creating space where nothing was before, this takes a bit of the momentum of this sub energy away, slowing it down to the point where it can become proto-matter, and eventually more complex matter, which can't travel as fast as the speed of light, so younger sub energy packets will overtake it and expand space further. The further this expansion goes, the farther away these loose matter particles will be from each other and at a certain point they won't be able to react with each other to create larger structures, hence on the inner regions of the universe will have more complex matter, mid regions will have proto matter, outer regions will have whatever sub energy is left from the original big bang until that too becomes proto matter. New sub energy can and will be created and matter itself can increase space as well. Due to the same irregularities that allowed matter to cluster up and eventually form galaxies, there will be irregularities in the shape of the universe as well. (also rogue bursts will do this and future extreme out bursts of sub energy or matter that will continue to shape the universe).

Different view on the shape of the universe can be see in this newScientist.com article, explaining how it could be funnelshaped.
A concave, flattened funnel can be explained from my model if there was no symmetry along the first axis, but there are multiple solutions to non-symmetrical models, getting more complex and numerous with increasing dimensions.

If the model in the link is truly the shape of the universe and the spaceship really travels in the way show in the picture, this sounds like proof of at least one higher dimension existing. To those living in that funnel, it will indeed seem like space is a funnel, but in 4D space, it will wrapped in such a way that the open end of the funnel is closed, allowing travel like the spaceship shows. Else we run into a problem : the only way for a ship to get across the funnel is either along the curvature and remaining in 3D space, or in a straight line, crossing the mouth of the funnel, where there is no 3D space, so it either pushes new 3D space where it goes and creates a tunnel of 3D space as it were across the funnel mouth, effectively closing it (especially if more ships or matter and energy in general move across the mouth, over time it will be closed. Most likely due to the age of the universe it will already be closed (note that this doesn't neccessarily creates a 3D universe that can never grow in size again), even though it seems open from a 3D point of view. What is actually the case is that each point on the edge of that funnel mouth are all 3D points, with a 4D element they all have in common, basically putting those 3D points next to each from the point of view of 4D. So, even though it doesn’t show on that image, all those points are sitting next to each other, allowing travel in the way the image depicts.

It didn’t have to stop here, there might still have been enough energy left to create more bursts, but these will become less frequent as with each existing dimension a greater magnitude of energy gets spread out and moved away from the initial point as well as the fact that the before mentioned 'force fields' grow stronger as they gain more dimensions. Also, new burst might occur in any 2- or 3-dimensional direction, not creating new dimensions but upsetting the symmetry slightly. This could again also explain the reason why these dimensions not all appeared at once, because in that case there would be theoretical no limit to the amount of dimensions available, seeing as i believe that the higher dimensions have an influence on the physics as they work in the lower dimensions, this would create far to complex systems for even matter to be able to form. How many dimensions there are i don't know, for the sake of the 4th Moon of Xyth storyline i have at least 5 documented dimensions, possibly going to 7 (seperate text on 'life, physics and evolution in higher dimensions' coming in the future).

At this point it gets tricky to have a visual representation. One representation i can use is actually not correct since lower dimensions are larger than higher ones, even tho volumes will be larger for higher dimensions. Look at this image of a point (zero-dimensional or 0D for short) sitting on a line (1D), which resides in a plane (2D) which resides in a cube (3D). Here every higher dimension completely encompasses the lower ones, in this way i can create shapes of undefined geometry (i’ll use spheres for simplicity) to represent even higher dimensions, but reality is different, yet trickier to represent.

Reality is closer to being a line (1D) made out of zero-dimensional points, which become dimensional only through their relationship with other points on this line. Around the center of this line, there is a plane (2D), in the center of this plane, a cube has grown (3D), within this cube higher dimensions reside etc. This is however too complex to represent ideas in the rest of this text so i will not use it, but will refer to it occasionally, just keep in mind the image below as a representation of the universe as a whole and the image above as the representation of a local area in this universe.

This is a sign of things to come as i will have to resort to 2D and 3D imagery and extrapolate to higher dimensions from there. It's fun either way as it's a good way to drive oneself insane trying to visualize 4D :p Just imagine a box containing something a magnitude bigger than the box or try to cram a box into a sheet of paper for starters.

In this universe black holes exists, but without the magic : they are simply super massive objects. They will not give anyone travelling through them the ability to travel in time, instead if you try to travel through one you will be properly destroyed and deconstructed in such a way that you can never again be fixed.

Imagine that somehow a part of our 3D split off or that a part of 3D space is shaped in such a way that you cannot get to it in a straight line. You will end up travelling in 4D space you think, but not quite (also because 4D space technically resides within 3D space despite the image below). Where ever you go you will simply push the borders of 3D space away and create more 3D space with almost no effort. The term 'space' here is nothing more than dimensional space that 'can' hold matter of equal dimensions, it's available space for 3D matter to reside in, if you try to move matter to an area past space, that matter will simply take some space with it where it goes, so there’s no true nothingness, except for places outside of the universe which you cannot see or visit, since seeing or visiting means that space needs to be created for you to go there or light trays to travel back from, thus removing the nothingness.

I have no other choice than to use images like this to represent things. Within 4th Moon i use 'dimensional gates'. Imagine a sheet of paper being a proper 2D universe and imagine it being in a box or a 3D universe. If a lifeform could exist in a 2D universe and it wants to travel from A to B in the most efficient manner, it can only do so in straight line. Now imagine that this 2D universe lies curved in 3D space, for the 2D lifeform nothing changes, he will still travel the same distance. However in 3D space the distance between A en B has become shorter when the 2D reality became curved. If the 2D lifeform could leave his universe along vector C (a 3d vector) he would be taking a bit of 2D space with him and create a bridge between A and B through 3D space. He will have reduced the distance considerably and will still be traveling through 2D space and will have no idea that 3D space existed.

In reality it looks like this : 2D space is 'bigger' than 3D and is not curved compared to 3D, it's the other way round, 3D is curved around 2D to allow the shortcut, since as you can see below the distance is here actually longer if you travel through a 3D bridge, but in effect it's shorter. In the same way 2D seems like a flat plane, it’s actually curved and twisted around 1D to allow 1D points to leave their 1D universe (which is a straight line) and travel through a 2D plane to rejoin their line somewhere else. From the point of view of the own dimension, the shortest distance between 2 points is always a straight line, from the point of view of a higher dimension, unfolded, so the lower ones become curved, the shortest distance between two points of a lower dimension is again a straight line, but a higher dimensional one, which is not possible in the lower dimension itself.

If you take the above two images, one with curved 3D space around straight 2D and the other with curved 2D space around 1D and straighten out the higher dimensions and observe the resulting curvature of the lower dimensions you get something like this (imagine the line is twisted, you can't see it due to it’s symmetry) :

It will now be clear that travelling trough the lower dimension is indeed not as efficient as travelling through higher dimensions. This is how it is in reality, but it’s more difficult to represent since higher dimensions are curved and with each increasing dimension, the curvature becomes more complex. I think i would need 5 dimensions just to show the curvature of a 3D space around a curved 2D plane around a straight 1D line. This seems to create contradictions but you have to keep in mind the fact that lower dimensions are older and bigger than higher dimensions.
This can also be explained as follows : even though in the images of how the universe started it seems like the dimensions are nicely structured and there’s no sign of wrapping or curving, dimensions only exist as a relationship between protomatter or subenergy units and these do not always have to sit next to each other in lower dimensional space to sit next to each other in a higher dimension. Higher dimensions will be more structured than lower ones because their structure depends on that of lower dimensions and each lower dimensional point will envelopped (in a structured manner) by higher dimensional points, thus a slightly more structured dimension is created. Two 1 dimensional points sitting next to each other in a 3D cube, do not have to sit next to each other in a 2D plane, this gets increasingly complex with higher dimensions and allows curvature of the lower dimensions. For an entity living within a certain dimensional universe it will always seem like his universe is structured neatly, but there might be indications (like the example of the funnel universe above) that will led one to believe that space is curved in a higher dimensional fashion.
Also, the higher the dimension, the more complex curvature in the lowest dimensions ca be and there’s no reason to say that it always has to be neatly structured. The same irregularities i mentioned before (and later) might very well exist in the shape and curvature of dimensions.

It is possible that due to irregularities (the same irregularities that allowed matter and time to exist in the first place, but see seperate text for details) and due to something i call ‘dimensional drift’ that there are multiple areas of for instance 3D space that are no longer connected to each other.
Example : 2 planes in a 3d box, they have been severed or came into existance seperately, due to dimensional drift, they moved away from each other along the height axis, thus, making it near impossible for 2D entities to reach one plane from the other, they would need a proper bridge between the two planes to allow them to travel along the height axis, a direction they cannot normally travel in their planes. However, to them it will not seem like they are truly travelling in 3D as they’re taking a bit of 2D space with there 2D bodies and in that 2D space they can still only travel in 2 directions.

Dimensional drift is the movement of dimensions in the whole of the universe and also change in curvature of higher dimensions compared to lower ones. This is obviously a slow process as it can have serious repercussions on the contents on dimensions if they get intersected by contents from higher or lower dimensions (lower to a lesser extend, the damage will most likely always be worse in the lower of the two intersecting dimensions). If the process would have been more pronounced, we would see the effects or we wouldn’t even exist.

There are going to be areas where one dimension borders onto another or where dimensions share subdimensions. In the examples of planes residing in a box, it clearly shows that the planes are using two of the three dimensions of the box, also they’re both using the same dimensions if they’re parallel, if not, one plane might be using dimensions one and two, while another might be using dimensions two and three, they’re both still two dimensions, but with a different orientation - getting from one plane to another in this case will be even trickier. Again the difficulty of representation, even though 3D space is bigger than 4D space, all it’s borders with 4D space will lie on the outside of 3D space even though 4D space lies within 3D space. To make it simple i will show 4D space as a sphere encompassing a 3D cube.
In reality : imagine a sphere (4D) in a cube (3D), if you try to move past the borders of your cube, you will expand 3D space, but if you move there with the possibility and intention to jump to 4D space, you will end up on the borders on 4D space (you might actually end up anywhere in 4D as you can’t predict the structure of 4D).

To have it make more sense visually i turn it around and let 4D be bigger than 3D and let it surround 3D completely. In here, travelling in a straight line (a 4D line) through 3D will let you allow to get past the 3D borders and you end in 4D space.

As said before if you know where these borders are and try to move, you will expand 3D space further, however, if you know where these borders are and stop right before them and then start moving along a 4D vector, you will actually enter 4D space. Now here i come across another problem which i haven’t fully figured out. With the above example i assume that you can only enter higher dimensional space from the borders of the lower dimensional space. I don’t think this can be solved since we only have 3D dimensions we can understand and extrapolation will not help here.
As example : take a line of finite length, this is an amount 1D space, if you move forward or backward you remain in this 1D universe, if you move sideways you end in 2D space, but if you move up or down, you end in either 3D space (seen from the pov of the 2D space) or in another 2D space with an orientation different from the first 2D plane. The second possibility, where you always end up in 2D space will seem to make more sense if you look at the example with 2D space as starting point. You can also say you have to move through 2D first to get to 3D, you can also say that moving perpendicular to a 1D universe, is only moving in a 2D direction. Any non 1D dimension you move in, will always only be 2D from the point of view of 1D, even though it may not seem that way from 3D since 2D first needs to be defined to be able to have 3D, also keep in mind curvature here which makes 2D actually 3D if you try to visualize it and 3D becomes 5D, hence perpendicularity can exist without having to move along a 90° angle.
Observe a 2D plane, a limited amount of 2D space. If you cross the borders you will end up in 3D space, if you move up or down you end up in 3D space and you can move up or down in any of the 2D locations in this plane, you will always end up in 3D space. The same with the line earlier, where-ever you cross the border, you end in 2D space.
It get’s trickier with a 3D box. The borders are clear here, but what if you were to move from a point somewhere inside the box? In both the line and plane examples, every location in those universums borders on higher dimensions, in case of the box, for every location that is not on one of it’s 6 sides, this is not true anymore.

However! Maybe i’m not following my own rules here, remember where i said that higher dimensional space lies within lower dimensional space : maybe every point inside the cube is in fact in touch with a point of the 4D universe that lies within the 3D universe. This however, would mean that you do not have to be at a border to be able to cross into 4D, all you need is to be able to travel along a 4D direction to end up in 4D. However, again, it is possible that we can extrapolate and simply say that in the same way every point on a line or in a plane has a border with a point in a higer dimensions, every point in a cube is not only in touch with it’s neighbouring 3D points but also 4D points. This reinforces the idea that all points are of the maximum dimensions available inside a reality, but they locally exibit only lower dimensional behaviour depending on how the are connected to other points. The idea that every point inside a box is in contact with points of 4D space that lies either in our outside the box depending on how you visualize it can be seen as slicing the box into an infinite amount of planes and space these apart with a distance of 1 point between them, and then filling the space between these planes with 4D space. In the visual representation of 4D residing in 3D, you simply fill the 3D box with 4D and 3D points at the same time (more than the box actually can hold, but they’ll fit) and make it so every 3D point is completely surrounded with 4D space while at the same time remaining directly in contact with it’s neighbouring 3D points, who are also each completely surrounded by 4D points. With this way of looking at it, we don’t break the rule that 4D has to be smaller than 3D, even though there are more 4D points than 3D points.
It may seem to us that all 3D points are connected directly to each other in straight lines, but keeping in mind the curvature of higher dimensions around lower ones, this is not the case, the image of 4D points surrounding 3D points even tho there’s no ‘room’ between 3D points should make this clear.

The image below shows 27 3D points connected to each other and forming a 3x3 cube, there are red lines between the points to show their connection at turns this small section of space into 3D space. From our point of view it will seem like the cube is one massive object with no holes in it. In effect (even when just looking at atoms and sub atomic particles, but this is not the point here) this is not the case, these points are spaced apart and on top of that, the space between them is filled with 4D points (which we can’t see, so we’re not aware of this). The 4D points are represented as a second sphere in pink around the blue 3D points, since i don’t know how many there are. In the second image you see a 2D 3x3 plane (made out of blue points) surrounded by 3D points (pink), here it’s clear that there are up to 26 3D points surrounding each 2D point. I say ‘up to’ since is possible that 2D points share surrounding 3D points as shown in the 3rd image.

That having been said, channelers deal with moving from one dimension to another, but not like dimensional gates. In natural bridges that connect two areas of a certain dimension through a higher dimensions, thus creating a shortcut, someone travelling through this bridge will never really leave his own dimension, the inside of the bridge itself is still made out of the same dimensional space than the rest of the dimension, this is making use of the curvature of ones own dimension. Dimensional gates are devices that take a small amount of f.i. 3D space as well the contents of it f.i. a ship and shoot it along a 4D direction past the border of 3D space, through 4D or higher space until this small bubble of space rejoins 3D space again and the ship can continue travelling there. With this method there is no real permanent 3D bridge (at least not for longer periods of time, due to dimensional drift), but these devices have the ability to send feedback to each other and through trial and error they can maintain the bridge much longer than any natural bridges would be able to survive dimensional drift by adjusting the 4D trajectory. These gates also have to be located on actual borders (by borders i mean borders of the curved 3D space seem from the point of view of 4D, you can access 4D from every 3D point, but the technology is based on finding the borders of 3D and finding the curvature and making use of that curvature to create shortcuts, as only then you know that after a certain trajectory in 4D you will end up in 3D again, which is not the case if you jump blindly to 4D from a non-border location in 3D) since they make use of the curvature of 4D space around 3D space. If you were to move along a 4D direction from any random point in 3D it’s not said that you will ever rejoin 3D space again, therefore you can’t just place these gates anywhere you want without having a proper idea of curvature of 4D and borders of 3D space.
However you can move along a 4D direction anywhere, if you are suited to travel through 4D (i.e. you have engines that can move your ship along 4 directions instead of 3) and if you have equipment that works in 4D and can scan 3D space borders, then you can make use of curvature of 4D again to create shortcuts. If you just want to fly at leisure through 4D and then hop back into 3D whenever you want, you don’t need borders since every point is connected to 3D anyways. Or let me put that differently, every point has all dimensions available so you can technically move back from 4D to 3D whenever you want. But this is dangerous. Look at the image of the box again, where each point is surrounded by 4D space, these 4D points are points where 3D is not necessarily defined. If you leave the 3rd dimension of a point in 3D space and move to the 4th dimension of that point (i.e. you move along a 4D direction) and from there on you move through 4D space, you can’t just assume that moving back to the 3rd dimension of any 4D point will actually put you back in your original 3D universe, you have to find a point that has a connection with your original space. Looking at the image you see there are far more 4D points than 3D points, so doing this is risky, even though 3D is bigger than 4D, due to the added dimension, the complexity of 4D is of a magnitude larger than 3D. (You need a sub-energy based sort of radar, that moves down to 3D from every 4D point near you and checks if 3D is actually your 3D, if so it will then give you a visual representation of a 3D shape in your area that can be used as locations where you can safely travel back to 3D. Sub-energy, because it is dimension-less and many times faster than speed of light, again, more info in a seperate text, but its obvious that relying on standard methods who are limited by the speed of light might make your journey last very long due to the extra dimension in 4D compared to 3D which will make travel times a magnitude more complex and essentially a magnitude longer).
Expanding on this idea it might be possible that there are multiple 3D universums next to each other which have different orientations so they cannot be reached from one 3D universum to another and you have to go through higher dimensions first to reach them. It’s also not said that every 3D part of a point actually belongs to a 3D universe and might just be nothing more than a 3D dimension on it’s own consisting out of only one point of space.

The idea of moving through higher dimensions is tricky in itself. A box has 3 dimensions, if you want to move it through higher dimensions to another location in 3D space, would you then need an additional 3 dimensions to move the 3 of the box, thus would you then need a universe with at least 6 total dimensions to make this kind of travel possible? Or is the added 4th dimensions in itself big enough (does it have enough bandwith so to say) to contain all information for the 3 lower dimensions? If you look at the amount of 4D points vs 3D points you might conclude something inbetween, however : the 3 dimensions of the box will be spread over 3 seperate points their 4th dimensions, while maintaining their relative positions and directions so the box can be safely deposited in 3D in one piece again.
If this is not the case, you would only be able to move one of your dimensions through 4D space, which in itself is possible, but if you then moved that one dimension back to 3D space, you would suddenly find part of you coming into existence in another location in 3D space, while still being connected to you, this is probably destructive for your being. Another option is that the highest dimension becomes the ‘leading dimension’ and if one of your 3 dimensions move through 4D, the lower ones will automatically follow. This creates a problem however, imagine you are using 4D space to get from A to B much faster than would ever be possible. One of your dimensions is travelling through 4D space, slower than the speed of light, the 2 other dimensions which are still in 3D would then follow the component that’s in 4D, but might travel faster than the speed of light if it is to meet up with the 4D component at another location in 3D space, which is not possible with standard matter.
(note i say speed of light, but that does not mean that i believe that light has dictated this limit, to me, light is a result of matter travelling at this limit, this is also not the only speed limit, sub energy has another limit - more info in a future text).

015a : a box, assume that it is size is one point
015b : split in it’s dimensional components, (each component is represented here by a pair of parallel planes with a certain orientation towards the other two pairs)
015c : each pair, or each dimension is spread over multiple points, even though the original box was only 1 point in size. These can then move to adjacent 4D points and after a while move back down to 3 different 3D points to assemble the box again.

What about 4D objects then in 4D space or 3D objects in 3D space, do these occupy all available dimensions or are they spread out over multiple points of the highest dimension they have access to? If they occupy all available dimensions, 3D object can intersect 2D space and collide 2D objects, which will be seriously damaged. Due to the extra magnitude of complexity of 3D space compared to 2D space and despite the fact that 2D is bigger than 3D, there are more 3D points than 2D points and there’s a very small chance that the 2D component of a 3D object will intersect with a proper 2D universe which might contain matter and life. This chance will grow even smaller with increasing dimensions due to the increase in magnitude of complexity.
If you look at 2 seperate 2D universums, it’s clear that due to the extra volume of 3D space, which is infite times bigger than 2D space from the point of view of 2D space, the chance of these 2 ever colliding is very small and grows smaller with higher dimensions. Also due to the complexity of higher dimensions, the chance that matter will have formed there or complex objects or even life can exist there is very small, thus even though 4D space has more points available than 3D space, there’s far less chance that anything is actually there. If objects are truly only using the highest dimension they have available to themselves, the chances of intersections are even smaller.

Regarding physics : i think that physics are fundamentally higher dimensional and the way they work in a certain dimension will be different from another dimensions if a certain force or law of physics depends on distances, volumes etc. Gravity f.i. is the same everywhere, but it will be stronger in lower dimensions since the force is contained or spread over less dimensions compared to higher ones, since the higher dimensions have more points per volume area. Lower dimensions will feel the influence of the mass of higherdimensional objects, if those objects share points that are also used by that lower dimension (but perhaps gravity might even influence points indirectly), this could explain some discrepancies which exist when trying to predict the gravitational pull of large systems such as entire galaxies and might even explain dark matter, but this is something i need to work on a bit more to try and figure out how it works properely and how influence trickles downs from higher dimensions to the lower.

A channeler is then a bridge between two or more dimensions where there more than two dimensions difference between the highest and lowest dimensions of the entire channeler system. F.i. 3rd and 6th dimensions. Instead of having 6D points surrounding 5D points around 4D around 3D points, there is a direct link between those of the 3rd and 6th dimension. Pressure from a higher number of points containing matter in 3D space compared to the much lower amount in any higher dimension will create a pull from 6D, tearing the object apart in it’s dimensions and spreading those over a larger area of 6D points, which are more numerous, making it near impossible to reconstruct the object that entered the channeler in 3D space. The simplest form a channeler can exist in, is one with only 1 entry and 1 exit point. The entry being a 3D black channeler, showing similar behaviour to a black hole, and the exit being a white channeler showing similar behaviour to the theoretical inverse of a black hole. The connection between the two is a channeler bridge. In more complex systems, there can be several entry and exit points and a more complex bridge system. Points where bridge splits or where bridges combine are called channeler nodes.

What causes a channeler? Natural cause can be a black hole that is so massive that it not only acts as a black hole in 3D but also in higher dimensions, meaning that even the 4D points, surrounding the 3D points become filled with matter, due to pressure from the amount of matter in 3D space. This would limit the size of black holes in 3D space, since after a time, additional matter would start spilling over in 4D space. If this happens very gradual and slowly, due to a slow growth of the 3D black hole, the results in 4D won’t be as dramatic and won’t create a black hole there. Instead, 4D will see matter entering their space and dispersing, not quite like a white hole since it’s very slowly. Over time 4D space in that area might become congested enough to create a black hole of it’s own and it might eventually spill over to higher dimensions. A channeler comes into existence due to a sudden creation of a super massive black hole in 3D space that immediately congests higer dimensions and creates black holes at first there too. Due to the gained momentum towards higher dimensions an amount of matter that would normally only congest 4D and create some spillover in 5D, might breach all the way through into 6D where it will disperse quickly and violently over the more numerous 6D points, this can not only go as far as sucking through the entire mass of the black hole through the created bridge and dispersing it violently into a miniature big bang like explosion in 6D but might even ‘fuse’ dimensions together in that bridge, allowing to remain indefinately and continueing to pull matter in it. This violent explosion doesn’t have to limited to the highest dimension (in this example 6D) but might also create a white channeler in 5D and 4D, where the 4D one might later become a black channeler after the fuse, depending on the diameter of the bridge. Non-natural causes : seperate text.

Travelling through a channeler from a lower to higher dimension is not adviced as the result is similar to falling into a black hole, not only do you get reduced to elemental particles, these will also get spread out over more dimensions, there’s no way to put you back together again. Travelling from higher to lower dimensions through a channeler will have the same restrictions as normal travel from higher to lower dimensions : you can only take those parts of you with you that will actually fit into that lower dimension, so a 6D being can only take his 3D components with him and controlling those from out of 6D will be difficult so it will have to make sure that it can move it’s ‘brains’ and hope that these still work in 3D space. It’s like trying to cram yourself into a piece of paper, it won’t work, so you just take a slice from yourself and cram that instead, then hope that this slice is capable of living in 2D. Looks better in case of a 4D being trying to move down to 3D. I have several scifi explanations for this for the various entities that can do this in my 4th Moon storyline. Another problem of moving down through a channeler is fighting the upward current and surviving the dimensional fusion, if you enter as 6D being, you will lose 3 dimensions, if you instead manage to create a 3D device and choose the 3 dimensions that are in use in 3D space you can survive the fusion, all that remains then is to find a way to survive the current that’s constantly trying to pull you back to 6D and disperse your atoms all over the place (this current at first is nothing but gravity and it’s strength is depending on the mass of the black hole, after the entire mass has been sucked through, this mass and the resulting gravity is almost completely gone, what is left is a true hole in space, if you get to close you will experience a pull or rather a warping of space that guides you towards to hole, at one point the warping will be so steep that not even light can avoid it anymore and fall into it, giving the same visual as a black hole with a horizon and accretion disk, but the diameter of the whole thing is much smaller than the black hold that originally created it).

And here ends the theory, even though it’s not finished. It’s clear that a lot of work still needs to be done and there are still a number of uncertainties that lie at the base of the entire theory. So far, even with two different ways of looking at how matter might be structured in a higher dimensional universe (see below), the concept of channelers can still be explained.

Addendum

This extra part deals with two possible ways how matter can be spread over dimensions. For both these i assume first that each point in space is capable of containing the higest dimensional matter unit available. So in a 10D universe, there might be 1D, 2D etc points, but each of these can be expanded naturally to contain a 10 dimensional unit of matter. If you look at images 14a through 14c, you see different points, some are 2D, some 3D and some 4D, you move past the borders of f.i. 3D space and there’s no lower dimensional space out there, you will create new 3D space, if you however push into 2D space, you will use the available points but turn them into 3D points.
There has to be a force or at least a ‘something’ present that binds matter with each other to allow us to define dimensions but also it’s needed to define dimensions for the rest of the universe, so that forces who have an influence on 2D and 3D objects can have different results on 2D compared to the 3D objects. There’s a certain element, which i’ll call component in the examples below which is used by all dimensions, so there’s a common element out of which these dimensions are built. This can be done in two ways : assuming a 3D cube, placed in a 4D universe and the entire reality has maximum 4 dimensions, thus each point in this universe is 4 dimensional, thus it’s made up out of 4 components. The points that make up the 3D cube contain matter in a certain structure : either, of each of these points, 3 of the 4 components are filled or only the 3rd one is filled. In both cases we can define a 3D object since we can clearly count (in case 1) 3 dimensions in use or see (in case 2) only a certain component in use. The question remains : how does reality indentifies this object as 3D, or does it simple not matter what dimensions it is made out of for all forces and laws of nature?

For the following images, a 4D point is represented as a collection of 4 components, each component is a small sphere, the entire point itself is the larger sphere around these 4 smaller ones. Each of the components is numbered in image 2, this also implies that beside a mechanism that defines dimensions in the first place there has to be a second one that places the components in a certain order, without this order we could not see what dimension a certain component belongs to. I didn’t number them in the first image, because here this mechanism is not needed (but might be present).

In case one, higher dimensional objects use increasing amounts of components. Example : assume a 3x3x3 cube, which uses in effect 27 points, each of which has 3 components filled, or 81 components in total. A 3x3 plane will use 9 points, each of which has 2 components filled, or 18 components in total. A line of 3 units length uses 3 points, each of which has 1 component filled with matter or 3 in total.
Thus : 3 to 9 to 27 points and 3 to 18 to 81 components.
This gives a possible way (there are multiple ways of course, but this is the most simple and imo most likely) to extrapolate a 3x3x3x3 4-dimensional object.
3 to 9 to 27 to 81 points (times 3 each time) and 3 to 18 to 81 to 324 components (points times dimensions). This (at the elemental level, where lines have actually a width and depth and where planes have a thickness, thus reinforcing the idea that each point is actually max-dimensional or in this case 4D) gives the line a certain mass (the amount of components defines mass), which is 1/6th of the mass of the plane, which is 2/9th of the mass of a cube, which is 1/4th the mass of the 4D object. Or the line is 1/6th the mass of the plane, but is also 1/27th of the mass of the cube and also 1/108th of the mass of the 4D object.
Since there is more mass, or in other words more matter, or more filled components present there is also increased danger for individual dimensions when they intersect with others due to dimensional drift.

In case two, a 1D line with 3 unit length will use 3 components in 3 points, the 3x3 2D plane will use 9 components (the minimum amount needed to identify each point as being 2D) in 9 points, the 3x3x3 3D cube will use 27 components in 27 points and the 3x3x3x3 4D object will use 81 components in 81 points.
It’s clear that the amount of points remains the same, but the amount of components, and as such the mass is lower than in the previous example.
We get : 3 to 9 to 27 to 81 points and 3 to 9 to 27 to 81 components.
The line has a mass 1/3rd of that of the plane, which has a mass 1/3rd of that of the cube, which has a mass 1/3rd of that of the 4D object. Or the line is 1/3rd the mass of the plane, but also 1/9th the mass of the cube and also 1/27the the mass of the 4D object. Compare that with the numbers in the previous case and we get the same mass for the line, but in this case only half the mass for the plane, 1/3rd the mass for the cube and 1/4th mass for the 4D object.
This allows a 4D universe and a 2D plane universe to occupy the same points, but since they’re using different components they will not harm each other. However, gravity will be different in 2D as part of it comes from 4D components which they cannot see.

So which one of these two is the real thing? I tend to think that case 2 is more likely, due to it’s simplicity of using less components on one hand but it also requires some element that allows us to define which component is what dimension. The strongest point against case 1 is the huge amount of mass and as such we would surely see the influence of 4D objects in our 3D universe, we would also see it in case 2, but not nearly as pronounced, remember that this influence goes up quickly as more and more dimensions are added, f.i. in case 1, a 7D object (in f.i. a 10D universe) might be massive enough to cause a black hole in 7D space, (extrapolation gives this 3x3x3x3x3x3x3 object 15309 components), whose influence might be felt in 3D (also a 3x3x3 object in 3D space will not be massive enough to create a black hole), where as in case two, you’d need a 9th dimensional object to get a similar order of mass (extrapolation in case two of a 3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3 gives 19683 components, but it occupies the same volume in a 10D universe as the 7D object, so mass per area is different in comparing both cases), this results in a black hole in 9D, with the same influence as the 7D one, but since due to increased complexity of higher dimensions, the chance of such an object existing is much smaller compared to a 7D one existing. Either way this extra higher dimensional mass results in increased gravity originating from mass we can’t directly see, possibly explaining the discrepancies i mentioned earlier. We can use these irregularities in the law of gravity to actually have an idea of the amount of 4D components present, but with no real view on 4D itself, thus, having no idea of how 4D components are spread or bunched up in certain areas of space it’s hard to come to any conclusions that way. Another problem with case 2 is that, due to the requirment of a certain component only being 3D to define a 3D object, a plane that uses only 3D components is actually a 3D object, as opposed to the same sized plane that is using only 2D components, which is then a 2D object. It also restricts the number of different combinations of these components compared to case 1, but on the other hand this does create a high complexity in case one, so this doesn’t have to be seen as a negative point for case 2.