It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking the Laws of Physics

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Common sense would tell you to google.

You seem to use that phrase a lot.
Obviously most of us are too dull to do it correctly because we can't seem to find the same links that you do. Please help us out by serving as a middleman and and providing those links which we are not clever enough to find with our impaired capacities.

edit on 12/28/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: graysquirrel

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Laws of physics also known as Natural laws act as a barrier for revolutionary science. Any device that does this is not patentable anywhere.


Bull #! I have been issued a patent (USPTO # 8887745) for my synthetic tornado invention who's operation demonstrates a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Then for sure, it does not violate any laws



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Laws of physics also known as Natural laws act as a barrier for revolutionary science. Any device that does this is not patentable anywhere. Why is this so?


I think your first sentence answers your first question.

The laws of physics exist. To have a patent for a device you must prove that it can work. If you can't prove it can work (even in theory) you can't get a patent. No patents for devices that break the laws of physics means that there are no such devices.
There are devices that break the laws



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79



To have a patent for a device you must prove that it can work.

Actually, you don't. These are the basic requirements.


The invention must be statutory
The invention must be new
The invention must be useful
The invention must be non-obvious

www.bitlaw.com...

No requirement for a working prototype.


edit on 12/28/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Laws of physics also known as Natural laws act as a barrier for revolutionary science. Any device that does this is not patentable anywhere. Why is this so?


I think your first sentence answers your first question.

The laws of physics exist. To have a patent for a device you must prove that it can work. If you can't prove it can work (even in theory) you can't get a patent. No patents for devices that break the laws of physics means that there are no such devices.
There are devices that break the laws


Such as?

Can you provide links to these devices?

Also, are stated devices actually working and proven to work outside of the owners/makers own environment?



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79
Don't have to work:
Here's a patent for a device which breaks the "laws of physics". And doesn't work.
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Thus educating you, and shutting down the OP's claim.


edit on 12/28/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TerryDon79



To have a patent for a device you must prove that it can work.

Actually, you don't. These are the basic requirements.


The invention must be statutory
The invention must be new
The invention must be useful
The invention must be non-obvious

www.bitlaw.com...

No requirement for a working prototype.



I looked through that and yes I admit I was wrong. Although they can ask for a prototype (scaled down model) if they want. Must be proof of concept or similar I was thinking then.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TerryDon79
Don't have to work:
Here's a patent for a device which breaks the "laws of physics". And doesn't work.
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Thus educating you, and shutting down the OP's claim.



Just read through that article and had a giggle.

"superconductor shield that changes the space-time continuum in such a way that it defies gravity." How could that not have set off alarm bells?



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79
There is no requirement to demonstrate that a patent works.
Nor, obviously, one which prohibits "breaking the laws of physics."

Hey, OP. Did I google that right? Do I get a prize?

edit on 12/28/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nochzwei

Common sense would tell you to google.

You seem to use that phrase a lot.
Obviously most of us are too dull to do it correctly because we can't seem to find the same links that you do. Please help us out by serving as a middleman and and providing those links which we are not clever enough to find with our impaired capacities.
You need to do some homework there mate



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TerryDon79
There is no requirement to demonstrate that a patent works.
Nor, obviously, one which prohibits "breaking the laws of physics."


I just find it amazing that anyone can apply for a patent as long as it fits a couple of basic requirements. Regardless if it works or not.

That last article said it's especially opened to con artists as people are more likely to invest in something with a patent.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TerryDon79
There is no requirement to demonstrate that a patent works.
Nor, obviously, one which prohibits "breaking the laws of physics."

Hey, OP. Did I google that right? Do I get a prize?
You are right, but in the claims, if any of those claims defy the known laws, then the patent is refused saying, it is not patentable/



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shadoefax
A man named Joseph Westley Newman invented a machine known as Newman's energy machine that he claimed produced more energy output than the machine required to run (i.e., over-unity or 'perpetual motion').[/QUOTE]

But he refused to have it properly tested! Like all similar scammers!


Newman argued that he had been mistreated by the patent office, and tried to have his motor legalized directly by the US Congress. He obtained a hearing in 30 July 1986 in front of several senators, but he was unsuccessful. During the hearing, Newman refused to have the machine tested by independent experts, and senator John Glenn pointed out that his supposedly-independent expert actually had a prior business relationship with him.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Laws of physics also known as Natural laws act as a barrier for revolutionary science. Any device that does this is not patentable anywhere. Why is this so?


I think your first sentence answers your first question.

The laws of physics exist. To have a patent for a device you must prove that it can work. If you can't prove it can work (even in theory) you can't get a patent. No patents for devices that break the laws of physics means that there are no such devices.
There are devices that break the laws


Such as?

Can you provide links to these devices?

Also, are stated devices actually working and proven to work outside of the owners/makers own environment?
Read thru my thread in my signature



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




I just find it amazing that anyone can apply for a patent as long as it fits a couple of basic requirements. Regardless if it works or not.
The thing is there have been many, many very good inventions for which no working prototype was provided. It would be bad to disallow a patent application based on that.


That last article said it's especially opened to con artists as people are more likely to invest in something with a patent.
Two edged sword. There's no doubt that patent applications are submitted with that in mind.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Common sense would tell you to google.


You made the silly claim, and as expected you are unable to back that silly claim up!



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

if any of those claims defy the known laws, then the patent is refused saying,

The claims defy known laws. The patent was granted.


edit on 12/28/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Just looked through your post history and this one is surprisingly similar to one you created back in May. Why didn't you just use the existing thread?



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TerryDon79




I just find it amazing that anyone can apply for a patent as long as it fits a couple of basic requirements. Regardless if it works or not.
The thing is there have been many, many very good inventions for which no working prototype was provided. It would be bad to disallow a patent application based on that.


That last article said it's especially opened to con artists as people are more likely to invest in something with a patent.
Two edged sword. There's no doubt that patent applications are submitted with that in mind.


So wouldn't it make more sense to have a more strict patent law where at least a proof of concept was needed?



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79
As I said, that would have prevented the development of many very good and valid inventions.

Some inventions take a large amount of money to develop beyond the conceptual stages. Large amounts of money mean you need investors. Investors are not likely to invest large amounts of money if the invention is not protected by a patent.


edit on 12/29/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join