Sunday, 13 July 2008

Entry 28: on making an appearance, elsewhere

I think I have explained that dimension shifting is not as easy as it looks. Well, it's not exactly difficult, just unpredictable. Essentially the way in which one intersects another dimension will determine how one looks. Given that one is already a complex hyper-entity, the possibilities are legion.

Let me illustrate with an example. Suppose that a common or garden elephant, a simple 3D one, is intersected by a 2D plane. You could get something like this, not the elephant you were expecting. You would scarcely expect simple Tooties to work out from six ellipses what the original creature looks like - or even that they are dealing with one entity rather than many.

So visiting places in the universe, as oneself, is usually not on (though it can be entertaining).

Here are the methods that I find best:

  1. Create a simple particle cloud in the shape of the entity you wish to project. This is not difficult, generally using dust and static electricity will do. There are a few problems. The dust cloud, though dense, can be somewhat transparent giving rise to reports of ghostly sightings and so on. If the static discharges too quickly the whole thing disintegrates giving rise to a pile of dust, considerable alarm and reports of ghostly sightings (again). The colour can be difficult to get right. But, for cheap and cheerful, you can't beat it.
  2. More difficult is to assemble the actual molecules of which the creature would be composed. OK, you need an outrageous number of them but at least you get weak nuclear forces working in your favour, and if you get the mix right, it will actually start functioning correctly in a biochemical sense. I say if you get it right, but that's easier said than done because of particle uncertainty. The whole thing can go sludgy and make a very bad mess of someone's carpet. Spontaneous combustion is another side effect giving rise to more alurums and rumour.
  3. I'll group these two together because they are quite close. The first is to exercise mind-control over an existing entity, so it will do your work for you. The second is to just hijack the biological computer for a while and drive the entity. The effects are similar, but the second method is better for a protracted project. Downside of both is a high incidence of schizophrenia afterwards, especially for the mind control lot. I mean, they can say "they made me do it" till they are blue in the face, but no one believes them.
  4. Best of all for any long term work is to either take over an embryo or to clone one. Then get on with the project for the natural life term of the entity concerned. Personally I think that taking an embryo over is ethically very suspect. I generally insist on cloning from a germ cell that was never going to be fertilised anyway, and use that.

My reasons for dwelling on these is the boy. He's got itchy feet again, and what with Metatron's visit and all, he's hot to trot and it's Earth that's in his sights. He has a very short memory, that lad. I cannot think of one of his excursions that has not ended exquisitely badly, but he always thinks it will be better next time.

"Pater, they sound so quaint, I think I'm going to love them".

Dear oh dear oh dear oh dear.

4 comments:

Pam said...

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. I love the way you think, and the way you write. Thank you.

Ernest de Cugnac said...

pam - my goodness, you are a sweetie pie. Thank you very much.

Janelle said...

and god said Let There Be More Posts From M. de Cugnac. . . .and the world waited. and waited. poke poke. no pressure or anything like that. god forbid. good morning! x j

Ernest de Cugnac said...

and Lo, God's conscience, which was called janelle, did weigh heavy upon him, and he was sorely vexed, for he had said this w/e and he delivered not. But he said monday night would be different.