WARP derived from known physics

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by prometheuspan, Sep 16, 2008.

  1. prometheuspan

    prometheuspan Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Sep 10, 2008
    yes, i do live
    I wrote this quite a while back after spending a few weeks working on the problem. It used to be accompanied by some sketches of a warp field and
    a warp engine, but that was long ago in a galaxy far far away and I don't have that stuff any more.

    Plus, even if i did, this forum...i have tried to post images, so far it doesn't seem to work...

    but anyways...

    Table of Contents

    * Axiom1

    It is impossible for any object inside of the universe to travel at a speed faster than the speed of light.

    * Axiom2

    It may be possible for an object to essentially "Leave" the universe, and thus, for "distance" to become something very different than it is now.

    * Axiom3

    An object might be able to travel faster than the speed of light, if it was isolated inside of a Gravitational bubble which was traveling through a wormhole.

    * Axiom4

    Traveling without a gravitational bubble through a wormhole would be fatal, for a variety of reasons.

    * Axiom5

    The amount of gravity that a ship will have to distort space/time is always equal to the normal mass energy of the vessel itself.

    * Axiom6

    Warp, if it works, will be based on using some sort of energy field to come into phase with the gravitional field of th vessel.

    * Axiom7

    Warp, if if works, will change the specific energy state of Gravitometric quanta, such that a gravitaional bubble forms inside of a wormhole.

    * Axiom8

    Rate of Speed in Tunnel; ROSIT; Refers to the rate of speed that a vessel would travel down a wormhole. This cannot exceed half of the speed of light or the vessel looses its ability to sense ahead of it. Early warp technologies will actually use fairly low ROSIT speeds.

    * Axiom9

    Ratio Multiplier of Wormtunnel RMWT; A useful wormtunnel will be shorter on the inside than it is on the outside. The question here is, how much shorter?

    * Axiom10

    "Warps" Cannot rationally refer to any given speed. Instead, they refer to advanced level Warp Technology, which uses multiple levels of Tunnel. Wormholes inside of Wormholes. Warp 1 thus means 1 worm hole tunnel. Warp 2 thus equals 2 wormhole tunnels, one inside of the other. The actual warp speed will depend on the RMWT and the ROSIT of each Tunnel.

    * Axiom11

    A functional warp drive system uses magnetic, Tachyonic, AntiEnergy, or other such means to create wormholes. These wormholes actually form dynamic whorl matrixes similar to those describing black holes. Each wormtunnel on the outside must be spun past by virtue of a thrust wormhole. There are thus worm tunnels writhing down the center of any early level warp technologies warp Engines.

    * Axiom12

    The minimum number of warp engines to counter vortex spin and chaos is 4. Each warp Engine generates a wormtunnel which merges into the others at an event horizon line ahead of and in back of the vessel. Those holomorphic singularities then branch wildly out, or flare, to form the bulbous sphere of the warp bubble. The warp bubble is propelled forward by the zero point energy agitation of serious spatial distortion.

    * Axiom13

    Another way of describing Axiom 12 is to say that a warp engine generates actually a wheel, whose spokes are pure energy, and whose curving surface is a magnetogravitic spatial distortion.

    * Axiom14

    The hardest part of generating a useful warp field is making space Roll. Leaving the universe is the easy part. Navigating in hyperspace is whats hard.

    * Axiom15

    Space and Time are actually 3 Geometric and 1 Kinetic Dimensions. We don't know if there are more Geometric or Kinetic Dimensions, But if there are, they are very small in width. For instance, maybe there is a 4th geometric dimension, which has a width of less than a single atom. It would be a whole dimension, but there would be no point in perceiving it. It would exist on too small a scale. However, it might render useful means by which to control, route, and modulate Warp Energies.

    * Axiom16

    Space and Time may be composed of many Geometric, Kinetic, or Frequential (Quantum different) Dimensions. If there are more dimensions, and we can learn to access them, this gives high hopes to warp travel theory.

    * Axiom17

    If there are no extra dimensions, they can be in theory manufactured using gravitometric spatial distortions.

    * Axiom18

    If warp travel becomes possible, it is unlikely that the limitations of "Star Trek" would apply. While there may be limitations, and we don't know what they are yet, the truth is, Warp Speeds fast enough to go to ?Andromeda Galaxy seem every bit as possible as Warp speeds to go to Alpha centauri.

    * Axiom19

    Falling theory. It may proove to be true that the easiset way to generate a warpfeild is to use a distant gravity well as a target pseudo singularity. If this becomes true, the largest obstacle to warp drive will become finding suitably large targets free from any intervening gravity wells.

    * Axiom20

    Any normal matter which encounters a warp boundary will be turned cataclysmically into graviton energy.

    * Axiom21

    Any civilization with warp travel technology has by another name mastered the gravitational bomb. Thus, Warfare in reality won't be pretty, won't look like laserbeams or what not, and entire solar systems could be destroyed by really very small pieces of apparatus. A Gravitational bomb creates a gravity well with a very high specific gravity and a very large feild of effect. Even if the bombs energy only lasts a second, the entire solaar system in question could be yanked towards a single location strongly enough that the solar system would be doomed. The point of this axiom is that Warp Technology warfare is very improbable because it is another order of magnitude larger a "MAD" (Mutual assured destruction) Problem.

    * Axiom22

    Any civilization with warp technology also has in theory the capacity to access zero point energy to create mass or energy by polarizing Zero. This would end all economics as we know it.


    Axiom A;
    A functional warp engine will be hollow, and the internal wormtunnel will actually travel down the center of the warp engine, flare out fore and aft, and curve around the ship.

    Axiom B;
    The amount of energy used to do this is not as important as the degree of organization. In theory, a very small amount of energy could do it if that energy was very highly organized.

    Axiom C;
    A warp field uses a magnetic field to modulate and cross interfere with the vessels own gravitational field. The vessels own gravity is the initial warp field until the warp distortion begins.

    Axiom D; Thus, the wormtunnel can be defined as a distortion, at first, of the vessels own natural gravity.

    Axiom E; Thus for early warp experiments, It will actually be (somewhat counter intuitively) Better to use VERY LARGE
    vessels since they have more gravity to start with.
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2008
  2. All Seeing Eye

    All Seeing Eye Admiral

    Sep 24, 2000
    The Astral Light Realms
    Where did you get all this information from exactly? :wtf:
  3. Ronald Held

    Ronald Held Vice Admiral Admiral

    Feb 21, 2005
    On the USS Sovereign
    This corresponds to what canonical references?
  4. Plecostomus

    Plecostomus Commodore

    Jan 19, 2008
    Official forum sex god
    Interesting stuff! Non-canon as hell but still I can see you put some thought into it.

    I'll ponder it further when I get home.
  5. prometheuspan

    prometheuspan Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Sep 10, 2008
    yes, i do live
    I studied physics, and then tried to figure out how it would work in reality.
    No, this isn't canon.

    I think canon is swell and all, but I'm interested in actually building the ships and actually obtaining FTL, not upholding the standards created by entertainment.

    As i stated in my short intro, it isn't canon, its REAL LIFE given an esoteric knowledge of quantum mechanics,
    gravitational and hyperdimensional physics, and extrapolated from everything current science understanding has to offer us.

    I happen to think that building the Enterprise or some semblence thereof is far more important and interesting than
    perpetuating canon. I might mention (tho it often gets me in trouble) That I have Aspergers Syndrome, and a 180 IQ.
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2008
  6. Plecostomus

    Plecostomus Commodore

    Jan 19, 2008
    Official forum sex god
    Well... and I'm not mocking you at all... if you decide to knock together a prototype the fabrication shop I work for is more than willing to help. It'll cost though so be sure to line up some funding first. We're all high-IQ trekkers as well and some of us are Asperger cases as well. :)
  7. prometheuspan

    prometheuspan Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Sep 10, 2008
    yes, i do live

    Well, I will be interested in putting together a prototype in the forseeable far future so thats a great offer. At this point, I'm just trying to get people involved in the design process.

    There are a lot of things I don't do or know well enough to do, I'm kind of like the guy with the macro. I need detailers and experts to flesh the stuff out.

    I wouldn't start with an FTL ship, I'd start with a realistic Earth to high orbit space plane.


  8. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Mar 15, 2001
  9. SonicRanger

    SonicRanger Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Feb 17, 2001
    Minneapolis, MN
    Sorry, prometheuspan, but that's gibberish, not "known physics."
  10. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Aug 26, 2003
    Well, it's a list of axioms. Or what in science is also known as fiction.

    Axioms by definition are baseless claims, to be given future credibility by inference from outside evidence, experiments and so forth. Sometimes a structure of seeming coherence can be formed out of a big heap of axioms that don't contradict each other and in some cases even support each other, but that merely results in one giant axiom which remains as baseless as ever until connected to actual research.

    In that sense, PrometheusPan is brutally honest: it's all pure speculation, not connected to reality by any demonstrated means, and the terminology spells this out.

    Timo Saloniemi
  11. prometheuspan

    prometheuspan Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Sep 10, 2008
    yes, i do live
    Its incumbent upon you to be a little more specific than that. In fact,
    All of this is derived from physics to the best of my ability. If you have a question or issue with a given axiom, why don't you ask a real question?

    The canon warp concept will never work.

    interesting, but I'm mixing in a lot more than General Relativity.
    No, its not gibberish. Its also not known physics, its extrapolated from known physics.
    failure to understand something doesn not mean its gibberish, it means you don't understand the sense it makes.

    I think its fair to call it speculation, but not fiction, since no claims have been made. Fiction would be if
    i cast this as a presentation or document made by a fictional person inside of a fictional universe to some other person.
    Axioms by definition are supposed to be self evident truths. You can't have "one giant" axiom because an axiom by definition is a single idea. Axioms together form paradigms. You can thus call this a speculative paradigm. Its
    impossible to do research until we get far enough away from the earth to not endanger it. Till then, its more meaningful to speculate realistically than it is to subscribe to "canon."
    This is true, I don't put my "work on the chalkboard" I just offer my results.
    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 hope that people can see this in the spirit it was posted, and that we can have a nice conversation over it, rather than just shooting me down because its easier to do than think about it.
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2008
  12. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Aug 26, 2003
    Yes, why not.

    The question is the same for each and every axiom:

    "Why do you believe this is the case?"

    Timo Saloniemi
  13. prometheuspan

    prometheuspan Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Sep 10, 2008
    yes, i do live
    I was hoping you would give me a chance to do this slowly over time.
    I can't answer that question without violating the rule here about posting more than 3 times in a row.

    It is however a pretty brilliant and awesomely on target question, and, I have to give you credit for your grasp of how to get down to the heart of the matter.

    I will attempt to give a brief answer then, per axiom, however, I can't possibly give a full answer in the space I have, so the conversation will have to move from there on to an axiom by axiom discussion, one axiom at a time.
  14. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Aug 26, 2003
    Oh, no hurry. I guess I will have enough trouble digesting just a handful of the answers per day, or week. All of this looks fairly alien, to the surface at least, and not easily derived from known or accepted premises.

    I just feel a slow step-by-step guide through the axioms would be the natural next step for this thread, rather than a jump straight into some higher-level musings.

    Timo Saloniemi
  15. prometheuspan

    prometheuspan Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Sep 10, 2008
    yes, i do live
    I think the answer to why I think that this is the case is really easy and something those of us familiar with physics can agree on. But to recap the obvious;
    1. Anything moving at the speed of light would itself be transformed into energy.
    2. The amount of energy required to propel a mass increases as the speed increases at an exponential rate as one approaches the speed of light.
    3. The mass of an object increases as it approaches the speed of light.
    4. Thus it would seem that it would require an infinite amount of energy
    to move an object at the speed of light.

    The ideas of brane cosmology, M-theory, and dimensions of a geometric nature outside of our universe are pretty standard ideas now in cosmology.
    It would seem the only obvious answer and it seem to be the more or less the standard answer as well. So far, nothing I have said really deviates significantly from the standard ideas regarding.

    1. A wormhole could in theory exit the universe as we know it, and thus no longer be subject to the problem of rate of speed per sey.
    2. The largest problem with most wormhole theories is that gravitometric stresses entering or inside of a wormhole would be theoretically fatal.
    3. Thus it would seem necessary to protect the vessel inside a different gravitometric construct, IE; the gravitometric bubbles.

    1. Acceleration at hundreds or thousands or millions of Gs upon entering
    the wormhole.
    2. The irregularity and sharpness of gravitometric chaos inside of a wormhole means that different parts of a ship would be accelerated at different rates and in slightly different directions.

    How could it be otherwise?
    What else is there to work with? Gravity is itself a spatial curvature. Increase and distort that curvature, and you have the potential for
    a wormhole.

    I don't really remember the point of this one.
    let me think on it.
    So if you are traveling down a wormhole, how fast are you going relative to the wormhole? The wormhole is the new "universe" inside of which all the standard laws of physics still apply. You can't move faster than light inside of the wormhole, and you don't go anywhere inside the wormhole without some amount of forward velocity.

    The whole point of having a womtunnel in the first place is to create a spatial distortion in which you travel a very short distance on the inside while space itself travels a much farther distance on the outside. If this is not true or does not work out, then entering a wormhole is pretty pointless and rather dangerous, with no real useful gain other than perhaps the science information one might obtain from the inside.
    Why do i think this is so? wow, thats complicated. Esp to sum up with brevity. The RMWT of any given worm tunnel is itself the largest problem
    for high warp velocities. How much stretch can you get? There are a lot of different theories on this, ranging from the possibility that you can leave the universe hyperdimensionally, making the point moot, to the idea that you can only sort of half leave the universe, but stay connected to it, by
    traveling in essence along the event horizon of those higher dimensions, or the universe itself, relative to the larger omniverse.
    So to achieve better warp velocities if the latter is the case, (And star trek and a large number of theories do assume this) The way to get the stretch
    one needs is to use worm tunnels inside of wormtunnels.

    This is much better to discuss or explain using images or drawings. But consider the problem in your own mind. You have to put something in a gravitometric box, and then you have to suspend that box in a wormhole.
    Where does the wormtunnel originate and how is it formed? How does the engine actually create the wormhole and the other spatial distortion geometries?
    The verbal best to give you in brevity is, how could it possibly be any other way?

    1. By definition, a wormtunnel is formed as space time wraps and curves
    around itself mostly in an elongation, but, somewhat of necessity in a circular motion around the circumference of the tunnel.
    2. That curving with only one warp engine would cause the vessel to begin
    rotating at enormous velocities, causing break up of the ship, or, disintegration of the wormhole.
    3. Each curving vector force has to have some other curving vector force to push off of. Think of a helicopter. Without the tail blade, the helicopter is going to spin and drop.
    4. If using only two engines, those forces will push the vessel either up or down depending on what direction each engine is spinning relative to the other. (again, this is much easier to understand if you draw it.)
    5. If using three engines, how do you balance two engines off of one?
    The forces would be too irregular, and again, you'd end up spinning and being pushed sideways into the wall of the wormhole.
    6. In order to create complicated warp geometries, it will require several different worm holes cross modulating each other. Again, this is easy to see if you start drawing it.

    I think this is self evident. Why would I think that? Well, how do we make space roll?

    this is basic information which is known to be scientifically accurate and not even slightly conjectural.

    Again, this is just what the basic science says. We don't have proof that other dimensions exist but many different interpretations of assorted quantum theories and models predict that they exist mathematically. Notice
    I don't commit one way or the other here, I just put forth the possibility.

    This assumes that we can grab a hold of space/time some how, probably via gravitons or tachyons or negative energy or etc. But if you can do that
    and work up a hyperdimensional distortion, then you can pick a new goemetric dimension and poke out of the distortion in that direction.

    I lifted this idea directly from reading theorists talk about their ideas, mostly if I remember correctly out of Discover or Omni or some such magazine.
    I don't remember the specifics well any more, but the reason to think so
    is that theres no theoretical boundary or limit above light speed that we know of. If you are leaving the universe, than any two points inside of the universe are the same distance apart from each other relative to you, it doesn't matter how far those points are separated from each other.
    If you leave the universe, the whoel universe relative to you becomes a singularity with an INTERNAL inflation event. All of space/time in our universe is just an instantaneous quantum fluctuation in a flashpan from a perspective outside of the universe.

    I'd point out that this all doesn't present a single theory of warp or even a single paradigm really as such, it covers a bunch of slightly different ideas,
    some of which are compatible with each other and some of which are not.

    But if theres some intermediate level of reality between the universe as we know it and the larger omniverse such as "subspace", which some theories predict might exist, then any given gravity well in that hyperspace might be thought of as a singularity and the whole universe could then be thought of
    as singularities riding each others surfaces. So in such a case, you could just tune to the gravitational pull of a remote singularity and then fall towards it.

    Why is this so? well, the outside of the warp boundary is longer than the inside, an atom comes up against that two dimensional surface- and its quanta are ripped away in assorted directions- at faster than light speeds.
  16. prometheuspan

    prometheuspan Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Sep 10, 2008
    yes, i do live
    my feeling is that its only complicated before you understand it and then its pretty simple.

    My feeling is that if you know physics and think about it, that this stuff really does derive from known physics pretty well at least most of it, so
    it should trace back quickly to somewhat familiar premises.

    I wish you would pick just one to focus on. The first few seem rather self evident to me, I could be wrong but it doesn't seem like spending a lot of time on the first few will be that enlightening.

    Where do you first encounter something you find "off" or which you don't understand?
  17. Gepard

    Gepard Vice Admiral Admiral

    Oct 20, 2007
    Between prometheuspan and think, my brain has been hurting a lot lately. :confused:
  18. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Aug 26, 2003
    Oh, it's not complexity that worries me. The issue is alienness, the degree to which this all is disconnected from reality. Star Trek warp drive is "pretty simple", too, but that doesn't make it any more real.

    I guess #1 is a good axiom in the sense that we have no reason to disbelieve in it yet, and it follows from a theory that is supported by observations.

    Let's look at the others, then.

    #2: The existence of "extrauniversal" realms is similarly accepted as part of seemingly consistent theories. However, from this does not follow that movement from "in" to "out" or vice versa should or would be possible, or does it?

    #3: Gravitometric bubble does not sound like a property of our universe, so ending up in one would already call for the departure you postulate. While a number of the later axioms are relatively "easy" and typically only list fantastic possibilities, this one already seems to present a gigantic chasm for the required leap of faith.

    #4: At least the rough properties of the gravitometric bubble would have to be known before its role in protection could be evaluated.

    #5: I see no particular reason for this claim, since the whole idea is to operate the ship in a realm where gravitic interactions are different from those familiar to us. And in the very next step you in any case postulate that gravitic interactions can be affected by factors as such unrelated to gravity.

    #6: Energy coming into phase with gravity is just gobbledigook. One would need to specify how the desired type of energy can interact with gravity.

    #8: Interpreting the geometry of the interior of the wormhole as conventional 3D space within which travel through spatial dimensions takes place is a rather dubious move. But okay, this is what axioms should be about: the defining of terms for later use.

    #9: Same as above.

    #10: This just piques my curiosity: why talk about "warps" when the idea is not to discuss the Star Trek FTL drive anyway?

    #11: Okay, so this is just a list of means that might create a wormhole, according to various theories, and not actually a direct endorsement of those particular theories?

    #12: Sounds like so much gobbledigook, applying potentially unrelated layman principles to phenomena not properly described.

    #14: How do we leave the universe? So far, there's no indication that this would ever have happened to anybody or anything, only that our current thought constructs don't all categorically deny the possibility. One step to me sounds at least as difficult as the other - and we actually think we know how space rolls in the "natural" case, around mass, while we have no "natural case" to go by as regards the other issue.

    #15: I see no evidence of the connection between hidden dimensions and the ability to control movement in or entry into a wormhole.

    #16: Okay, the universe might be like that, and we might make use of it one day.

    #17: Doesn't seem that anything in current science would predict this sort of an ability. It would require some very specific properties of the universe...

    #18: Sounds nice. Here's hoping!

    #19: A wild guess?

    #20: A wilder guess? (Why gravitational energy?)

    Timo Saloniemi
  19. prometheuspan

    prometheuspan Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Sep 10, 2008
    yes, i do live
    Correct. We have no reason to believe that we can ever access the"extraverse".

    Absolutely true. Which is why most scientists say wormhole travel is
    impossible because you'd just be ripped to quanta.

    I'm not attached to it, it just seems that it would be like that to me.

    At this point we don't know of any means to do that.
    Other than negative energy, which itself is theoretical and possibly even more impossible to obtain than unobtainium,
    theres no theory which allows us to us energy to effect gravity in such a way short of using as much energy as
    would be created if one converted say the mass of jupiter to energy.

    I don't think I am doing that, but i can see how you could get the impression i was. Remember the language is 3 dimensional, thats not my fault.

    i confess its always been a pet peeve of mine, which made no sense at all. What does a "warp" mean or would it really mean? I always found the canon explanation to be silly, and, so did they, which is why they kept changing it.

    Correct. I'm not offering this as a "how to", its an exploration of what I think to be theoretical fundamentals
    if we are going to have serious discussions about the theory. More than anything its an attempt to build a conceptual lexicon. Nothing more.

    I don't have them memorized by number, so I hope that in the future we can be more specific. I'm not pretending that
    any of these make absolute sense, I'm just making the best sense I think can be made on the topic.
    At the end of the day, warp is still impossible as far as we know. So its all gobledygook , or its all conjecture, depending on how interested you are in the topic.
    Lets just buckle down and ask for better descriptions, or for delayman-ization of same.

    I'm trying to start a conversation here, not pretend to be the ultimate authority on everything in the universe.
    I can understand how people would get the latter idea, but a shift in perspective is in order. I just want to have a frank, informed, cogent and adult conversation on the topic. I have no attachments and no pretensions.
    I hope Warp drive can some day be achieved. I design generation sleeper ships for the purpose of exploring the Galaxy because I have looked into it pretty deeply and as far as I can tell, its impossible. That shouldn't stop us from traying tho.

    In theory, we leave the universe by proceeding in a direction away from it other than the standard 3 dimensions.
    You are right, we don't have any reason to think that this is possible. At the same time, as far as the science goes,
    if it is possible, then there is the window of a smidgen of a chance for our warp drive.

    Neither do i which i think is why i state that navigating would be harder than exiting the universe.

    I'd make that point for most all of this. its all one big fat MAYBE???

    Since i don't know off the top of my head what you are referring to, I'll just restate the obvious. As far as science now knows warp is impossible. Yet, there are some things in science which give us pause to hope, and I think that they are worth exploring.

    Why graviton energy?
    because its sheering in two different directions at FTL speeds.
    Can't turn into much of anything else.

    would you accept a half hearted apology?:rommie:
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2008
  20. Shaw

    Shaw Commodore Commodore

    Feb 21, 2007
    Twin Cities
    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.

    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.