Breaking the Laws of Physics

originally posted by: TerryDon79

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?

Lunch time at the patent office. Truth is they will give a patent for almost anything these people aren't scientists. And as long as it can't kill anyone no harm done

After the threshold requirement of patent eligibility is met, an invention must still fulfill several other requirements. A patentable invention is also required to exhibit utility, meaning that it must be useful for some purpose and not merely inoperative or operatively impossible under the known laws of nature. For example, a perpetual motion machine would describe a useful invention if it existed, but because such a machine is know to be physically impossible, its description in a patent application would not exhibit any actual utility and therefore would be ineligible for patent protection.

books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

So, it would seem that the OP is correct in a manner of speaking. Unless he could perhaps provide a working model, which would demonstrate that the known laws of nature would need to be adjusted.

This might explain why the spaceship got in there. It wasn't described as a perpetual motion machine. Or someone was in a hurry.


OP, want to let us know what sort of patent you applied for? Maybe you could cite this in an appeal.

Requests for additional evidence should be imposed rarely, and only if necessary to support the scientific credibility of the asserted utility (e.g., if the asserted utility is not consistent with the evidence of record and current scientific knowledge). As the Federal Circuit recently noted, “only after the PTO provides evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably doubt the asserted utility does the burden shift to the applicant to provide rebuttal evidence sufficient to convince such a person of the invention’s asserted utility.”

www.uspto.gov...


Something weird happened when I quoted that. This is a test:




Heh. It works!

Hi, my last post here was a whooping 100,000 posts ago, according to the welcome back message I received (please no one welcome me back, I wont be be an active poster so it'd be weird for people to try and interact with me, only mentioning ive been inactive cause I thought 100000 was a cool number).

Anyways, I thought I'd ched some light into the patent system. Curently, there is no law that bars something or anything from being patentable as long as it serves one purpose, which may be part of a plurality of purposes, not all purposes being achievable..

That said, you could claim a circular plastic device with 6 concentric stars of David equally spaced from each other with the intended purpose of having a human stand on top of it and transporting that human to the 12th dimension of light where he could travel faster than the speed of light to another point in space in our dimension.

An examiner would pay no attention to the 12th dimension thing at all, instead, he would pay attention to the circular plastic device and conclude that the intended purpose is for a human to stand on it. If no prior art is found, then a patent would be granted, but a patent granted does not mean you are getting a patent on a vehicle that takes you to the 12th dimension, just on the plastic circular device with the concentric stars on it. Nothing more.

I think the patent mentioned earlier here may have been allowed since an intended use would be directing air (perhaps if a pump was to blow air in it), independently of what the inventor thinks will be achieved or not.

There used to be a program at the USPTO called SAWS, intended to stop weird claims.. But as of this year, and after some bad press, the uspto suspended the program.

But dont get me wrong, things can still be prevented from obtaining a patent if no intended use is clear and it violates natural laws (the rejection is known as a 101 rejection). for example, a computer system that calculates a value at t1 based on a signal received at t2, wherein t2 is at a later point in time. The office would argue that a human cannot use that machine because it does not exist. Of course everyone knows doing so will take you to the 13th dimension of light, far better than the 12th! No way the government will let you do that!

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? Is there a watchdog entity that keeps tabs on individuals that allegedly break the natural laws? If so, which particular govt entity is that.?
Though it is a fact that over the years lot of inventors have gone missing, or die under questionable circumstances.
Just wondering what are your views on this subject.

You cannot break the laws of physics/Natural Laws.
Anyone with such a claim, and evidence in support, would be world known, in all the headlines, a Nobel Prize wiener, and the traditional physicists would be all a'twitter and forming a mob!
If you can make the device, you most certainly CAN patent it!
What sites you been visitin'? *__-

Like others and even Scotty said, "You cannae break the laws of physics!"

However there are some areas in extreme or boundary conditions where the laws aren't so tightly defined. Rather you find something in a corner case in a less tested area, and if it can be proven with effects and conditions that are regularly repeatable, then you need to look into how it works and perhaps re-define those laws. If you know the underpinning mechanism, then the phenomena should be definable in a mathematical sense, even if the results have a hard to predict or chaotic condition.

a reply to: Phage

Can you explain whats the purpose of granting a patent for a device that doesnt work? I dont get that one.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
No real purpose. It's a matter of practicality I would think.

It's not feasible for patent inspectors to have a demonstration that every invention works. In 2014 there were 578,000 patent applications for inventions. There were 300,000 approvals. Now that isn't saying that 300,000 of those 578,000 same inventions received approval, the process for a single invention can take a few years from application to patent.
www.uspto.gov...

I talked about another reason here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Can you explain whats the purpose of granting a patent for a device that doesnt work?

You can take it and your spiel to some gullible moneybags and get him to finance your ‘prototype’.

a reply to: Phage

Hmm...ok. that sounds reasonable. Red your post.

Thanks for the update.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Can you explain whats the purpose of granting a patent for a device that doesnt work?

You can take it and your spiel to some gullible moneybags and get him to finance your ‘prototype’.

Yep...that appears to be the downside of granting "wishful" patents. Considering what phage said about it...it appears it's unavoidable.

originally posted by: daniel_g


I think the patent mentioned earlier here may have been allowed since an intended use would be directing air (perhaps if a pump was to blow air in it), independently of what the inventor thinks will be achieved or not.

You are absolutely correct. My attorney used wording something like, plurality to create and maintain a vortex, in the claims. I guess it was worth the money I payed him. He new how to make it go through.

I have no qualms about the USPTO not recognizing that it really is a working PM invention. I'm just glad that I have protection.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Phage

Can you explain whats the purpose of granting a patent for a device that doesnt work? I dont get that one.

Another purpose is to increase the size of your patent portfolio. Many large corporations buy completely unrelated (and sometimes non-working) patents for that reason. When they get into a patent fight with another company, if they have 10,000 patents in their own portfolio, they can claim a competitors invention infringes on one of their patents. The burden is then upon the claimant of the invention (not the defender) to dig through those 10,000 patents to find the one they are infringing upon. The larger the portfolio, the more it would costs to search through them...so an infringement search is not worth the cost.

It's a legal way of preventing a competitor from gaining an advantage over you....not really ethical, but legal none the less....cheap and effective.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Thanks for the additional info. So, when all the shiny sparkly bits are removed...it gets down to $$.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Can you explain whats the purpose of granting a patent for a device that doesnt work?

You can take it and your spiel to some gullible moneybags and get him to finance your ‘prototype’.

Lol nice one

originally posted by: spirit_horse

originally posted by: big_BHOY
a reply to: Nochzwei

The laws of physics have been tested by all & sundry and never broken once.

Except that faster than light speed has been proven in the laboratory and as such makes your statement moot. It is only a law until it is broken and particle entanglement in quantum physics and the lab tests proved it.

But by the 1960s, physicists were increasingly convinced of quantum mechanics and its propensity to flout the traditional rules of physics. Entanglement was possible, they said. But not until recently have scientists begun to demonstrate it. Last year, for example, researchers at the University of Science and Technology in Shanghai measured how fast "simultaneous" really is. They set up two entangled photons 10 miles apart, then observed how fast a change of state in one would register in the other. The result, according to their paper, was 10,000 times the speed of light.

Scientists demonstrate 3 way Quantum Communication

Only one slight flaw there. If you actually checked the details of the experiment instead of looking at a synopsis, then you would have seen that no actual information was ever transmitted faster than light. What happens here is that the correlation between the entangled particles is almost instantaneous but they still have not once been able to violate causality by transmitting informatition faster than the speed of light.

As of right now, Einstein and Special Relativity still remain supreme.

Breaking the laws and sidestepping them are two different things.

originally posted by: [post=20201227]big_BHOY

As of right now, Einstein and Special Relativity still remain supreme.

That's not so. You dilate time on a tabletop and it phoo phoos einstein's GR and SR

a reply to: Nochzwei

And it gets you fame, glory, and even a patent.
So, go for it!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nochzwei

And it gets you fame, glory, and even a patent.
So, go for it!

Not to mention a nobel prize and enough funding to do anything you want.

a reply to: big_BHOY

OK, so you are saying that they are not changing say a photon's position in one place and making the proton in another place change, say spin up - spin down where you could use it as an on/off (1,0) communication?

I will have to look because I thought I read somewhere that they have made a security key using quantum entanglement 60 miles apart. I guess I am confused quite thoroughly now. I guess you are saying that due to being entangled they don't need to send, i.e. transmit anything. That would be the spooky action at a distance for sure. If that is what you meant by not breaking the speed of light, then OK. Looking at correlations in quantum physics makes my head hurt lol!

By being entangled outside of our normal idea of space time means somehow that regardless of the change happening faster than light could reach the same distance, does not mean anything was transmitted because at this point we have no idea of how entanglement is happening on a quantum level? Is that getting close at all?