View Single Post
Old September 18 2008, 01:00 PM   #20
Shaw's Avatar
Location: Twin Cities
Re: WARP derived from known physics

prometheuspan wrote: View Post
Axioms by definition are supposed to be self evident truths.
Then doesn't most of what you've put forward fail to be axioms by this definition? 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. 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?

It seems to me that you are playing awfully lose and fast with this stuff and lack a certain understanding of what you are assuming you know. 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.

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 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.

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.

Its not an attempt to demonstrate, the idea is to start a conversation, preferably one where people ask questions or seek clarificiation or ask for the relevant science ideas to a given axiom.
I've asked for clarification on your use of terms before, and I'll ask for clarification again here (as you have invited this)...
1. What do you mean by 3 Geometric and 1 Kinetic Dimensions?
2. Isn't holomorphic singularities sort of a contradictory term? Specially when considering the definition of singularity.
3. What, in your mind, are dimensions? You seem to be using the term even more loosely than in any "popular physics" references that I've seen.
Additionally, please don't take this as picking on you. I'm assuming you want serious responses to what you've put forward, but until we're able to ascertain what you think this stuff means when you reference it, it is hard to tell where you are coming from.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote