Then doesn't most of what you've put forward fail to be axioms by this definition?
Its an interesting paradox of consciousness that one persons self evident truth can be another persons bumbling inane gobbledygook. I find
these ideas to be self evident, but, thats me.
Similarly, truths we now think of as self evident, such as gravity, or,
the roundness of the earth, or, the laws of conservation of matter or energy were at one time considered crackpot ideas.
I'm not saying that this needs to live up to mathematical rigor at this point, but much of what you've put forward seems to display a lack of ability to look at your own work critically.
I would encourage you to refrain from projecting your capacity to look at these ideas critically onto me. I can be very skeptical, and I might ask a lot of questions or refer people as you have to some reference materials.
I'm happy to receive criticism if its constructive. The purpose of this thread as I see it is to work on the problem together, not pat me on the back, and, not tear me down.
Do you honestly think that the ideas you've put forward would withstand scrutiny by you? If someone else had posted this and you were seeing it for the first time, what would your reaction be?
I honestly think that these ideas are entirely defensible and in point of fact they have withstood scrutiny by people with doctorate degrees in physics.
It seems to me that you are playing awfully lose and fast with this stuff
I consider that a fair appraisal on your part.
and lack a certain understanding of what you are assuming you know.
I consider that an unfair appraisal on your part.
I'm getting the strong impression that you are lacking the core foundations in physics, geometry and topology to help really see what some of the science you are using is actually saying.
I am not sure what gives you that impression, but I hope that we can quit talkign about me and talk about the physics, the theories, and the ideas.
If you feel that you could do better, then you absolutely should. How do you think it should work?
One of the drawbacks of "popular explanations" of physics theories is that they are attempts to put into words things that really can't be fully communicated in words.
And So here i am, putting things into two or three sentence chunks which really are much more complicated than that, and opening myself to all sorts of potential criticism, fully knowing that I have super simplified much for the purpose of brevity and starting the conversation.
And people often believe that having read these "popular explanations" that they now have an understanding equal to that of the people who are actually rigorously working in these areas.
Yeah, that sucks when that happens.
I just think if you scrutinized your own work more you might have an easier time understanding why it is getting the reaction it is.
I understand completely. There are several factors at play. The first and most important one to consider is that the links to current science are not apparent. I didn't put all my work on the black board. If i had and tried to post it here, I'd be accused of flooding. How much work would such represent if it actually is true that I'm deriving this from a depth exploration of science? Hundreds of hours.
The second is attachment to both canon and to science dogmas. As is said in martial arts; First you learn the form. Once you have mastered the form, the form falls away. That falling away may look sloppy but the masters movement works. Over the long term and with more introspection on your own part, I think you will realize that these ideas have lasting and meaningful staying power, even if they might be better formulated or more
eloquently expressed than I have.
The third is standard pack psychology and egotism. The first impulse of any male is to find fault. Thats millions of years of evolution and hard habit to break. Its also pointless, because while its easy to attack me, its a whole lot harder for you to come up with your own 22 or 30 basic axioms.
Thats the challenge here in any case, not knocking me down.
I'm not the one who needs to ask questions. I offered you a couple of links to the work that real theoretical physicists are doing in warp theory so that you could investigate them and find out for yourself what actual physics says on the subject.
What you seem to fail to understand is that this presentation is a result of looking at those same kinds of materials.
Frankly this is a more advanced and more diverse exploration of ideas than anything you are going to find to link me to.
You've come up with a complicated and interesting idea, but Alcubierre and other physicists have come up with a theory that's much simpler and much closer to how fictional warp drives are portrayed, and I thought you might be interested in exploring those ideas.
Yes, they have come up with some interesting ideas. And I think we should explore them. Which is what I am doing.
If you feel that I have left something out, by all means add your own 30 axioms.
This is blurring two distinct concepts. The "FTL" capacity of a wormhole comes from topology, the possibility that it's shorter on the inside than the outside.
In my opinion, both concepts together would have to be employed to make it work. Also, a wormhole could in theory
be created which would be shorter on the inside than the outside, but also, thats not true of all wormholes by necessity.
The speed of light in the space within the wormhole would still be c and would still be a limit on the velocity of any particle passing through it; it's just that the distance it would have to cover would be much smaller.
I don't know why you are telling me this when I just got done saying the same thing in the body of ideas which you are criticizing.
Granted, if there were an alternate continuum with a higher speed of light, a wormhole would be the only way to reach it, but it's not an intrinsic or required part of wormhole travel per se.
My opinion is that a wormhole is only functional as such to get into and out of higher dimensional realities and etc,
and that in fact to make warp work will require a combination of several different approaches.
Perhaps this is a failure of clarity on my part, but I also am exploring simultaneously a few different possibilities, some of which might even be mutually exclusive.
