Submachine 9 theories and suggestions

[Anteroinen]

Besides, if the geotags coincide between layers, as indicated by the note in layer 3, why would they have to move them? It seems that it would be easier to move the locations floating in the void, since a lot of rebuilding was due anyway were the plan to be created in practice.

The only counter-argument I have is that it might be more difficult to move the positions of individual Locations rather than the Layers themselves. Being that they're stacked up on top of each other, it seems logical that you can move the position of one Layer to another area, as long as they remain stacked. Locations, however, may be more difficult to manuever, especially since the only assumption we have is that they work in an XYZ manner (how all the Basement Locations seem to have nearly the same Coordinates in SNEE), but moving one Location out of place could be "Jenga." We know, however, from what Mateusz said, that the Layers can be disconnected. Locations, however, I don't believe there's anything like that. Even though you have this working for you in the counter-argument:

however their ability to actually move them about in "interdimensional space" remains to be demonstrated.

So then how exactly were the Layers moved, in response to this:

One thing is certain - that dimentional pull was temporary. Once the damage was done - they turned it off. Or rather - disconnected the layers.

Where could they be moved to, if not in "interdimensional space"? That is the question.

I went on and drew this sketch of how I think they went about it:



It is also possible - no: more likely - that some section of the layer was pushed through another one, and THAT was the "connection".

Why do you suppose moving a location - essentially a building - is harder than moving an entire dimension? Well I know we're assuming so much here, it is hard to say if any of this is accurate.

[Rooster5man]

Clever...very clever...I didn't think of it that way, though I should have (in that the Layers "connected" by being right on top of each other - as I should have because of the 'Layer Board,' as I've dubbed it, in Sub7 and Sub8.) I see what you're saying - If the Layers aren't pushed through the Z-Axis, that completely destroys the Plan and thus it's not possible that the "outskirts" of the Layers (being surrounded by X- and Y- Axis) can enter the "outside" without being destroyed, or throwing the Plan off-balance (hence "destroyed.")

Why do you suppose moving a location - essentially a building - is harder than moving an entire dimension? Well I know we're assuming so much here, it is hard to say if any of this is accurate.

A Location is more than just a building though, as you know. To add to the list of assumptions, as I said previously, the XYZ layout of all the Locations in each Layer possibly work like Jenga - They're stacked together in a formation that, by taking out one Location and rearranging it, you're collapsing that whole Layer, in a way probably not unlike Mur's doing with his Karma powers.

[Vortex]

Never thought of that either... *mindblow* :O

[Rooster5man]

I was really scared for a moment that I was the only one who hadn't thought of it like that XD

We don't know how the Plan works in full, but that's a really good Theory nonetheless.

[Anteroinen]

We don't know how the Plan works in full, but that's a really good Theory nonetheless.

Why, thank you. However, I think I have just found a critical flaw in it: the layers are not two dimensional, but three dimensional. This means that even z-axis movement would break the symmetry, does it not? This renders the layers completely stationary - if the plan is to be maintained - although I suppose pushing one section through to another could create effects like the ones seen with the lighthouse.

[Rooster5man]

the layers are not two dimensional, but three dimensional. This means that even z-axis movement would break the symmetry, does it not? This renders the layers completely stationary - if the plan is to be maintained - although I suppose pushing one section through to another could create effects like the ones seen with the lighthouse.

I always kept the thought that the Layers are three-dimensional in mind, don't worry about that. However, your drawing still works, let me give you an example: I don't know if you've used AutoCAD, but there's a program that allows you to make 3-D objects (either on AutoCAD 3D, or another program, Inventor.) Now you can take one of these objects and put them through another, as you would an object on a program when holding down your mouse over it, and then insert the object on top of the other, thus being able to splice both objects together (and deleting the area you wish to cut out - that may be another flaw here, but let's assume that the "cut out" feature doesn't exist when splicing the Layers together.)

So Layer 1, being it has the Lighthouse in question, is probably made a "ghost layer" (i.e. how it can travel through the Z-Axis without interfering with other Locations in other Layers), thus splicing out the Lighthouse, rotating it in this new Layer, then returning it back to Layer 1.

Very hypothetical, I know.

[Anteroinen]

the layers are not two dimensional, but three dimensional. This means that even z-axis movement would break the symmetry, does it not? This renders the layers completely stationary - if the plan is to be maintained - although I suppose pushing one section through to another could create effects like the ones seen with the lighthouse.

I always kept the thought that the Layers are three-dimensional in mind, don't worry about that. However, your drawing still works, let me give you an example: I don't know if you've used AutoCAD, but there's a program that allows you to make 3-D objects (either on AutoCAD 3D, or another program, Inventor.) Now you can take one of these objects and put them through another, as you would an object on a program when holding down your mouse over it, and then insert the object on top of the other, thus being able to splice both objects together (and deleting the area you wish to cut out - that may be another flaw here, but let's assume that the "cut out" feature doesn't exist when splicing the Layers together.)

I haven't used AutoCAD, but I think I get what you are explaining.

So Layer 1, being it has the Lighthouse in question, is probably made a "ghost layer" (i.e. how it can travel through the Z-Axis without interfering with other Locations in other Layers), thus splicing out the Lighthouse, rotating it in this new Layer, then returning it back to Layer 1.

Very hypothetical, I know.

Another complete hypothetical point: perhaps that is what gives the layers their number? Perhaps they've experimented on which layer overrides which's laws of physics when connected?

[Rooster5man]

I haven't used AutoCAD, but I think I get what you are explaining.

That's alright, I'm sure you understand though - The Layer in question (Layer One) becomes "invisible" to all other Layers until it reaches its destination....Actually, that's probably another flaw, but...XD

Another complete hypothetical point: perhaps that is what gives the layers their number? Perhaps they've experimented on which layer overrides which's laws of physics when connected?

Hmm...Maybe. That they mixed and matched Layers and re-ordered them to a certain degree, rather than numbering them simply because the SubNet broke them up into that order.

[WorldisQuiet5256]

Rooster5man I use AutoCAD too. Before I learn to use it I used the shape program on Microsoft word.

Wanted to help explain but I forgot due to another thing I had to deal with. All I can remember it had something to do with how when one object from other dimension had to move through its copy from another dimension it would do what the Ghost does in order to get through it without destabilizing.

Sorry.

[Rooster5man]

Rooster5man I use AutoCAD too. Before I learn to use it I used the shape program on Microsoft word.

Wanted to help explain but I forgot due to another thing I had to deal with. All I can remember it had something to do with how when one object from other dimension had to move through its copy from another dimension it would do what the Ghost does in order to get through it without destabilizing.

Sorry.

I'm not quite sure I follow...I'm going to guess and say you're asking where the Lighthouse in the Layer we're shifting the Lighthouse in (let's call it Layer X since we're uncertain of where it was shifted) is going to go. That's probably another flaw, but, then again, each Layer is different, as we've seen - Perhaps there's empty space in the area where the Lighthouse is.

If that wasn't your question, I apologize.