WARP derived from known physics

[shipfisher]

Had i known that my capacity to edit would end on some time frame i hardly would have left those posts in such condition.

It has become increasingly clear that you guys are not interested in the subject, just mocking me.

This does not motivate me to bother to explore it any further.

Nor does it bode well for my continued participation on this board.

Mate!

This is a forum.

This thread has received many well considered responses.

That is well and truly a result.

Don't confuse getting served the hard word with any particular malice on anyone's part. That's just part of the game around here.

The more you get people's backs up and diverge from orthodox thought on a given subject, the more you get at least some in the audience going "hmmm...".

Revolutions have started that way, even if the trekbbs boards might not seem the most fertile ground for such at times.

The cheering section for the keen insights of others aren't amongst the most prolific posters on these boards. Seemingly grudging acknowledgment that you may have a point should be deemed high praise. Just have fun with whatever you get back and remember that an entertainment franchise is in fact at the core of things in this neck of the woods. Many here have put together a somewhat personalized model of how trek tech works as seen on screen, and this tends to be associated with varying degrees of emotional investment (I'm guilty of this - it happens when you grow up with something). Some posts rate as pretty good rorschach test results.

Once again...have fun.

 

[Ronald Held]

Would you want to continue the discussion on the Science forum?

 

[Tigger]

It has become increasingly clear that you guys are not interested in the subject, just mocking me.

That is not true and you insult those who have tried to have a conversation with you by stating so. A conversation is a two-way dialogue, after all.

Personally, I agree this should be kicked over the Science forum, since the goal is to discuss a fictional propulsion system solely within the context of existing science.

Second, it would likely have been better to approach this one "statement" at a time, rather then positing an entire theory. That way, to conversation stays focused on one thing at a time and discuss it to a consensus. Once that is done, move on to the next "statement" so as to build on each preceding one.

Third, Science is not just about the results. You also really do have to "show the work on the chalkboard" to prove those results are valid. If Einstein's paper on Relativity was just the equation and the equation alone, the professional science community would not have taken it seriously.

And fourth, understand that Science is about the math. I don't know how many professional scientists "lucidly visualize" or however you said was how you developed your theories, but I do know that they develop theories that involve a great deal of equations that are all then solved so as to offer a mathematical proof of their theorem.

If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then you're going to have a difficult time working with those of us with scientific backgrounds because we work the way the discipline tells us to work. And for every "genius" you can quote who broke the system, if their work is recognized by the professional scientific community, somewhere along the way, they presented that work in a way that conformed to that discipline.

 

[prometheuspan]

Mate!

This is a forum.

This thread has received many well considered responses.

It has received only one response worthy of calling it such and the rest is crap. That one response starts off assuming that I am ignorant and moves to inform me of shit i already knew. Then 15 people drive the thread off topic to tell me how much they think I'm lame.

Crap. I'd do better with a group of first graders.

Don't confuse getting served the hard word with any particular malice on anyone's part. That's just part of the game around here.

Frankly, the alpha dog king of the hill game gets entirely too much
air time compared to solving the problems. I'm not interested in all of that BS, I'm interested in how to make a workign model. anybody who doesn't share that interest should stay off the thread, not use it a vehicle to prop up their diseased egos.

The more you get people's backs up and diverge from orthodox thought on a given subject, the more you get at least some in the audience going "hmmm...".

Hmmm is great. Starting half a dozen threads on this board and not getting a single useful response because everybodies either too busy playing at pack psychology or nobody answers? Thats not hmm, thats FAIL.

Revolutions have started that way, even if the trekbbs boards might not seem the most fertile ground for such at times.

There lies the tragedy. All of these great minds and all they can seem to do with them is constantly work out whos on top.

The cheering section for the keen insights of others aren't amongst the most prolific posters on these boards.

I'm not looking for cheering, just adults who are interested in warp speed
and how to obtain it, instead of juveniles who need to cyclically prove how much better they are than the next easy target.

Seemingly grudging acknowledgment that you may have a point should be deemed high praise. Just have fun with whatever you get back and remember that an entertainment franchise is in fact at the core of things in this neck of the woods.

I can't imagine how you or anybody would think that this is fun, that I have gotten back anything, or that this isn't a total waste of time.

Many here have put together a somewhat personalized model of how trek tech works as seen on screen, and this tends to be associated with varying degrees of emotional investment

Which is all fine and good until somebody sits down given what we know of physics and tries to figure it out rationally. Then that person is mocked, ignored, and told that hes being an idiot.
Which is a crying shame, because its an interesting high order problem,
and doing it justice on this board would have been a worthy conversation.

Once again...have fun.

I'm not having fun. Then Again, everything i ever try to do with humans to have fun pretty much ends up the same way.

 

[prometheuspan]

That is not true and you insult those who have tried to have a conversation with you by stating so. A conversation is a two-way dialogue, after all.

Its great to have one of those. Let me know if and when it starts or what forum i have to sign up for.

Personally, I agree this should be kicked over the Science forum, since the goal is to discuss a fictional propulsion system solely within the context of existing science.

My goal is build a working FTL drive. I don't know what everybody elses goals are other than to beef up their egos by pissing on mine.

Second, it would likely have been better to approach this one "statement" at a time, rather then positing an entire theory. That way, to conversation stays focused on one thing at a time and discuss it to a consensus. Once that is done, move on to the next "statement" so as to build on each preceding one.

Dear humanz; sorry my mind doesn't work in clinity little baby steps.
I WAS going to solve all of your problems, but, since you can't handle communications deeper than a single paragraph, I've decided trying to help humans is entirely pointless.

Third, Science is not just about the results. You also really do have to "show the work on the chalkboard" to prove those results are valid. If Einstein's paper on Relativity was just the equation and the equation alone, the professional science community would not have taken it seriously.

Give me a break. If you have any knowledge at all about the underlying complexities then you know as well as i do that covering them is impossible given the forum rules regarding three posts and the post limit. One second you say less is more and the next second theres not enough. I can't win either way, so, why bother?

And fourth, understand that Science is about the math. I don't know how many professional scientists "lucidly visualize" or however you said was how you developed your theories, but I do know that they develop theories that involve a great deal of equations that are all then solved so as to offer a mathematical proof of their theorem.

Virtually all of the ones that made the big breakthroughs describe doing so via thought experiments.

If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then you're going to have a difficult time working with those of us with scientific backgrounds because we work the way the discipline tells us to work.

Thats gibberish and crap. Science says talk about the theory, not the person. Science says ask questions and ask for clarification, not, shoot from the hip and ask questions later. None of this has anything to do with science, its all alpha dog egotism and pack psychology.

And for every "genius" you can quote who broke the system, if their work is recognized by the professional scientific community, somewhere along the way, they presented that work in a way that conformed to that discipline.

Actually, einstein and others redefined the discipline and made it conform to them.

I'm not looking to do that, I'm just (was. Have now given up) trying to start
a conversation by generating a working lexicon for primary important principles.

Obviously, this board doesn't have what it takes, and its always been a flat waste of time.

 

[sojourner]

Dude, the people on here have repeatedly asked for more detail and all you have done is come up with excuses. If you can't supply the math, then you will never be able to do anything with your "lucid visualizations" anyways. Even if you do come up with a working idea for warp drive, if you can't communicate it, then it won't do anyone any good.

 

[Unicron]

I'd appreciate it if things didn't get too personal. I'd prefer not to close this thread.

 

[SonicRanger]

prometheuspan, the fact that you are surprised by and increasingly hostile toward our reactions to your unsupported "axioms" suggests that it is you who is unfamiliar with the realities of working in science, not us. If you cannot coherently explain "Axioms" #6 and #12, just to pick two, from first principles, then we're correct to think you have nothing.

 

[shipfisher]

I do wish you luck in your quest for an FTL drive mate, though this forum may not align well with the sort of feedback you seek.

To step out of trekish ramblings for a moment, the likely impossibility (or at least extreme difficulty) of real FTL drive is probably a built-in safety feature of the universe against the likely exploitative ambitions of any species that's in it's technical infancy - like us. Maybe the answers to the FTL problems follow a few thousand (million?) years of technical (and moral) development.

We might be better served with our best and brightest solving climatic and economic problems right now.

 

[l0ft]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath

I am truly bored talking about me and sure you have all sorts of insights into warp theory that would be much more interesting.

"Unlike those with autism, people with AS are not usually withdrawn around others; they approach others, even if awkwardly, for example by engaging in a one-sided, long-winded speech about a favorite topic while being oblivious to the listener's feelings or reactions, such as signs of boredom or haste to leave" -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome Section 2 Social Disorder.

I hate to attack you personally however the problem is obvious. You do not posses the social skills to have a conversation with 99% of the population. Your rantings have been nothing short of one sided, and further more you have been ignoring most of what we've been saying here. We have tried to give our two cents but it's clear that you don't want to hear it. As far as alpha dog, I only see you trying to have the last word and it seems to be only your "axioms" that are the correct way to go. This community has rejected your theory. Clean it up and make more sense and we'll be happy to review it again.

 

[Tigger]

I'd appreciate it if things didn't get too personal. I'd prefer not to close this thread.

I think the OP's stance requires it, personally, but it is clear nothing of substance is going to come out of it, so I will no longer waste my time perusing or participating in it.

 

[Ronald Held]

None of these arguments should be personal.