On 09/04/2024 10:48, Snidely wrote:
> After serious thinking occam wrote :
>> On 06/04/2024 11:35, Snidely wrote:
>>> occam explained on 4/6/2024 :
>>>> On 06/04/2024 02:23, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>> On 05/04/24 23:59, occam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My main scepticism of the 'Big Bang' theory is that it has only
>>>>>> occurred
>>>>>> once (as far as we know). Whatever the initial conditions, what is it
>>>>>> stopping it happening again? Imagine the interference patterns that
>>>>>> would result with two (or more) Big Bangs.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would we know? If it happened again, this newsgroup would no
>>>>> longer
>>>>> exist.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please explain.
>>>>
>>>> 13.8 billion years ago there was nothing. No mass, no energy, no time -
>>>> as we know it.
>>>>
>>>> Then the universe spontaneously exploded into existence through an
>>>> instability ('Big Bang') due to some unknown initial conditions. I
>>>> appreciate we _think_ we understand the first milliseconds of the
>>>> process. But we do not know what caused the initial spontaneous
>>>> explosion.
>>>>
>>>> My original question  - why have there not been other similar
>>>> spontaneous explosions elsewhere in the vastness of space?  By that I
>>>> mean parts of the unknown universe we have not yet expanded into?
>>>>
>>>> (Back to my coffee.)
>>>
>>> "why have there not been .. [in] the unknown universe?"
>>> Why do you speak of something not being in the unknown universe, when
>>> you don't know anything about the unknown universe?
>>>
>>> By the way, multiple bangs  is usually discussed by
>>> archaeoastrophysicists as the "many bubbles" concept, although Jerry
>>> will likely correct me by providing the usual term.  I think it is often
>>> considered one version of myriad "multiverse" conjectures.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The 'many bubbles' concept as I understand it is 'one bang, one
>> universe'. The two bubbles never interact with each other. In that sense
>>  is of no interest to anyone, as it cannot be observed or verified and
>> is doomed to remain a conjecture.
>>
>> Previously:
>>> you don't know anything about the unknown universe?
>>
>> I know we are currently expanding into an unknown part of our universe.
>> As the horizon of our bubble extends, we know 'the beyond' exists.
>
> No we don't.  We see less, because the expansion takes our neighbors
> further away until they are outside the boundary of what we can observe.

That is very ostrich - head-in-the-sand - thinking. We could see them,
now we cannot observe them (since they have drifted beyond our horizon)
therefore they no longer exist?

>
>> (Not
>> so with any parallel universes, which are currently only mathematical
>> constructs.)
>
> Well, yes. If we could interact with them, they'd be in our universe.
>
> /dps
>

Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 23:13:36 +0100, Paul Wolff
> <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >I was a patent attorney (European, not USA),
>
> Just out of curiosity, what was the most outlandish device a client
> brought to you for patent application? And, was it refused or
> accepted?
>
> (You may interpret "outlandish" any way you chose)

From your side of the pond:
You can't get more outlandish than U.S. Pat. #1087186
You'll never guess what it is for, unless you know, [1]

Jan

[1] Vg vf: N zrpunavpny qrivpr gb cebir gurer vf n Tbq.
<uggcf://tbqbsubcr.arg/2016/03/16/gur-tbq-cebivat-cngrag/>

Tuesday, occam observed:
> On 09/04/2024 10:48, Snidely wrote:
>> After serious thinking occam wrote :
>>> On 06/04/2024 11:35, Snidely wrote:
>>>> occam explained on 4/6/2024 :
>>>>> On 06/04/2024 02:23, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/04/24 23:59, occam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My main scepticism of the 'Big Bang' theory is that it has only
>>>>>>> occurred
>>>>>>> once (as far as we know). Whatever the initial conditions, what is it
>>>>>>> stopping it happening again? Imagine the interference patterns that
>>>>>>> would result with two (or more) Big Bangs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would we know? If it happened again, this newsgroup would no
>>>>>> longer
>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please explain.
>>>>>
>>>>> 13.8 billion years ago there was nothing. No mass, no energy, no time -
>>>>> as we know it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the universe spontaneously exploded into existence through an
>>>>> instability ('Big Bang') due to some unknown initial conditions. I
>>>>> appreciate we _think_ we understand the first milliseconds of the
>>>>> process. But we do not know what caused the initial spontaneous
>>>>> explosion.
>>>>>
>>>>> My original question  - why have there not been other similar
>>>>> spontaneous explosions elsewhere in the vastness of space?  By that I
>>>>> mean parts of the unknown universe we have not yet expanded into?
>>>>>
>>>>> (Back to my coffee.)
>>>>
>>>> "why have there not been .. [in] the unknown universe?"
>>>> Why do you speak of something not being in the unknown universe, when
>>>> you don't know anything about the unknown universe?
>>>>
>>>> By the way, multiple bangs  is usually discussed by
>>>> archaeoastrophysicists as the "many bubbles" concept, although Jerry
>>>> will likely correct me by providing the usual term.  I think it is often
>>>> considered one version of myriad "multiverse" conjectures.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The 'many bubbles' concept as I understand it is 'one bang, one
>>> universe'. The two bubbles never interact with each other. In that sense
>>>  is of no interest to anyone, as it cannot be observed or verified and
>>> is doomed to remain a conjecture.
>>>
>>> Previously:
>>>> you don't know anything about the unknown universe?
>>>
>>> I know we are currently expanding into an unknown part of our universe.
>>> As the horizon of our bubble extends, we know 'the beyond' exists.
>>
>> No we don't.  We see less, because the expansion takes our neighbors
>> further away until they are outside the boundary of what we can observe.
>
> That is very ostrich - head-in-the-sand - thinking. We could see them,
> now we cannot observe them (since they have drifted beyond our horizon)
> therefore they no longer exist?
>
>>
>>> (Not
>>> so with any parallel universes, which are currently only mathematical
>>> constructs.)
>>
>> Well, yes. If we could interact with them, they'd be in our universe.
>>
>> /dps
>>

Can you prove they exist?

/dps

--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15

* Paul Wolff <j3bMBleZVSFmFA9V@wolff.co.uk> :
Wrote on Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:24:09 +0100:

> Sorry to disappoint you, but I choose not to go there. The last thing
> I want to engage in is a retrospective of my career - my ambition is
> not to be encumbered by any of it any more.

hear hear

publishers will have to look elsewhere for: retired patent officer
reveals all in shocking candid memoirs

> If it would only stop raining this year, I have a huge stack of
> ancient papers waiting to go on an equally huge bonfire.

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:24:09 +0100, Paul Wolff
<bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, at 23:02:02, Tony Cooper posted:
>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 23:13:36 +0100, Paul Wolff
>><bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was a patent attorney (European, not USA),
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, what was the most outlandish device a client
>>brought to you for patent application? And, was it refused or
>>accepted?
>>
>>(You may interpret "outlandish" any way you chose)
>
>Sorry to disappoint you, but I choose not to go there. The last thing I
>want to engage in is a retrospective of my career - my ambition is not
>to be encumbered by any of it any more.
>

Your choice, of course, but the question was not about what *you* did,
but about what was presented *to* you.

Several years ago, I joined a group of urologists in the bar after a
meeting where I was an exhibitor. They were having a conversation
about some of things they had been called to ER ("Casualty") to treat.

There were recountings of pencils, pens, and a small pocket flashlight
stuck in penises, but the most unusual was about a small garden snake
that a man had tried to insert in his penis. Well, unless you count
the one about a man who had injected silicone caulk in his penis to
enlarge it. The caulk migrated to the tip and formed a mass about the
size of tennis ball.

None of the urologists brought up what *they* did in the way of
treatment...just what was presented *to* them.

I've never attended a post-meeting bar conversation with any
proctologists, but I imagine they have some "outlandish" examples they
were called on to remove.

bertietaylor wrote:

> occam wrote:

>> On 09/04/2024 07:42, bertietaylor wrote:
>>> occam wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/04/2024 01:10, bertietaylor wrote:
>>>>> All masses are tied together by strange invisible strings. Call them
>>>>> lines of force. Or gravitons making up the strings. A tug from motion
>>>>> has instant impact irrespective of distance but subject to the inverse
>>>>> square law. Such strings or lines of force tie us to the Sun, Moon,
>>>>> planets and stars and galaxies.
>>>
>>>> Let me get this straight. You think gravitational force is instant i.e.
>>>> faster than the speed of light?
>>>
>>> You are going to say I am a crackpot like Arindam if I say yes? For
>>> nothing can be faster than light!
>>>

>> You need to explain your sentence: "A tug from motion has instant impact
>> irrespective of distance but subject to the inverse square law."

> Consider a ball revolving around the hand with a string. There is the tension in the string which keeps it moving. Since the ball is revolving, the tension is scalarly constant.

Obaue: The magnitude is constant.

> That tension is the same throughout.

> Now consider the Earth and the Sun, or a electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom. There are effectively
> strings connecting them, for their circular motion. The forces involved are constant throughout the revolutions, just like the tension in actual strings in the example above.

> However the path is not entirely circular. When it deviates, there has to be an extra tug, and the tension or forces that were there, change. Throughout the string, or the invisible line of force or along the constituent gravitons. And this change is instantaneous, throughout the length of the string, or along the line of force.

The changes in the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field
don't occur instantaneously. They propagate at the speed of light (if
the fields are in vacuum). I was never any good at this this, but your
search term is "retarded potential". For electricity and magnetic
fields, see also "Lienard-Wiechert potential".

There's no experimental evidence for gravitons--gravitational waves
have barely been detected--and no workable theory that includes them.
Among physicists who have opinions on the matter, I think most expect
that there is such a particle, though.

> Like if the string breaks, the tension throughout has to become zero. Irrespective of length.

It does become zero, but not immediately.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56833/slinky-base-does-not-immediately-fall-due-to-gravity

> I do not know if anyone has explained all this earlier the way I have now, but yes, this may be my idea of string theory (what that really means to the theoretical physicists I have no clue!).
...

This has nothing to do with string theory, which models electrons,
quarks, photons, etc., as vibrational modes of tiny strings--either
lengths or loops.

--
Jerry Friedman

jerryfriedman wrote:

>> I do not know if anyone has explained all this earlier the way I have
>> now, but yes, this may be my idea of string theory (what that really
>> means to the theoretical physicists I have no clue!).
> ..
>
> This has nothing to do with string theory, which models electrons,
> quarks, photons, etc., as vibrational modes of tiny strings--either
> lengths or loops.

One might say that he is stringing you along ...

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On 09-Apr-24 14:13, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 23:13:36 +0100, Paul Wolff
>> <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I was a patent attorney (European, not USA),
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, what was the most outlandish device a client
>> brought to you for patent application? And, was it refused or
>> accepted?
>>
>> (You may interpret "outlandish" any way you chose)
>
> From your side of the pond:
> You can't get more outlandish than U.S. Pat. #1087186
> You'll never guess what it is for, unless you know, [1]
>
> Jan
>
> [1] Vg vf: N zrpunavpny qrivpr gb cebir gurer vf n Tbq.
> <uggcf://tbqbsubcr.arg/2016/03/16/gur-tbq-cebivat-cngrag/>

Would the modern equivalent be an application written in Pascal?

--
Sam Plusnet

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024, at 14:12:01, Tony Cooper posted:
>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:24:09 +0100, Paul Wolff
><bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, at 23:02:02, Tony Cooper posted:
>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 23:13:36 +0100, Paul Wolff
>>><bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I was a patent attorney (European, not USA),
>>>
>>>Just out of curiosity, what was the most outlandish device a client
>>>brought to you for patent application? And, was it refused or
>>>accepted?
>>>
>>>(You may interpret "outlandish" any way you chose)
>>
>>Sorry to disappoint you, but I choose not to go there. The last thing I
>>want to engage in is a retrospective of my career - my ambition is not
>>to be encumbered by any of it any more.
>>
>
>Your choice, of course, but the question was not about what *you* did,
>but about what was presented *to* you.

I know, but I can't revisit one without revisiting the other.
>
>Several years ago, I joined a group of urologists in the bar after a
>meeting where I was an exhibitor. They were having a conversation
>about some of things they had been called to ER ("Casualty") to treat.
>
>There were recountings of pencils, pens, and a small pocket flashlight
>stuck in penises, but the most unusual was about a small garden snake
>that a man had tried to insert in his penis. Well, unless you count
>the one about a man who had injected silicone caulk in his penis to
>enlarge it. The caulk migrated to the tip and formed a mass about the
>size of tennis ball.
>
>None of the urologists brought up what *they* did in the way of
>treatment...just what was presented *to* them.
>
>I've never attended a post-meeting bar conversation with any
>proctologists, but I imagine they have some "outlandish" examples they
>were called on to remove.
>
Nothing so exciting for me, though there was the case of "Pee like He"
(TM) which my lady assistant handled.
--
Paul W

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 09-Apr-24 14:13, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 23:13:36 +0100, Paul Wolff
> >> <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I was a patent attorney (European, not USA),
> >>
> >> Just out of curiosity, what was the most outlandish device a client
> >> brought to you for patent application? And, was it refused or
> >> accepted?
> >>
> >> (You may interpret "outlandish" any way you chose)
> >
> > From your side of the pond:
> > You can't get more outlandish than U.S. Pat. #1087186
> > You'll never guess what it is for, unless you know, [1]
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > [1] Vg vf: N zrpunavpny qrivpr gb cebir gurer vf n Tbq.
> > <uggcf://tbqbsubcr.arg/2016/03/16/gur-tbq-cebivat-cngrag/>
>
> Would the modern equivalent be an application written in Pascal?

Now that is extremely unlikely, so it must be true,

Jan

occam wrote:

> On 05/04/2024 04:38, bertietaylor wrote:
>> Quantum entanglement is the equivalent of mutual coupling, that is, how
>> the state of one or all affects the state of each one.  In the quantum
>> domain relating to gravitons, there is continuous such coupling
>> proceeding at an instantaneous rate, for each graviton, thus accounting
>> for the "action of a distance" known from even the ancient Newtonian
>> electrodynamics.

> Question: If we had such a thing as a 'graviton radar' we would
> instantly know of the death of a star say, a 100 light-years away, yet
> we would still be able to see it for another 100 years?

If you ask an astrologer, mostly likely they will say yes.
For according to astrology the movement of planets affects us, especially in conjunction with other background objects in the universe. I don't think they talk of time lags, but I don't know, astrology is not my subject.
Stars are very far away, so the force from one star is very little and thus submerged in the background forces from other stars and galaxies.

bt

jerryfriedman wrote:

> bertietaylor wrote:

>> occam wrote:

>>> On 09/04/2024 07:42, bertietaylor wrote:
>>>> occam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/04/2024 01:10, bertietaylor wrote:
>>>>>> All masses are tied together by strange invisible strings. Call them
>>>>>> lines of force. Or gravitons making up the strings. A tug from motion
>>>>>> has instant impact irrespective of distance but subject to the inverse
>>>>>> square law. Such strings or lines of force tie us to the Sun, Moon,
>>>>>> planets and stars and galaxies.
>>>>
>>>>> Let me get this straight. You think gravitational force is instant i.e.
>>>>> faster than the speed of light?
>>>>
>>>> You are going to say I am a crackpot like Arindam if I say yes? For
>>>> nothing can be faster than light!
>>>>

>>> You need to explain your sentence: "A tug from motion has instant impact
>>> irrespective of distance but subject to the inverse square law."

>> Consider a ball revolving around the hand with a string. There is the tension in the string which keeps it moving. Since the ball is revolving, the tension is scalarly constant.

> Obaue: The magnitude is constant.

>> That tension is the same throughout.

>> Now consider the Earth and the Sun, or a electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom. There are effectively
>> strings connecting them, for their circular motion. The forces involved are constant throughout the revolutions, just like the tension in actual strings in the example above.

>> However the path is not entirely circular. When it deviates, there has to be an extra tug, and the tension or forces that were there, change. Throughout the string, or the invisible line of force or along the constituent gravitons. And this change is instantaneous, throughout the length of the string, or along the line of force.

> The changes in the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field
> don't occur instantaneously. They propagate at the speed of light (if
> the fields are in vacuum).

The gravitational field never travels, it only varies with the presence of masses.
That is so because masses are always there, from the law of conservation of mass.

All masses are linked by invisible strings, or rather, lines of force.
Every single electron, proton is connected to every other electron and proton, going by the above.

How these lines of force work - are they composed of gravitons?- I have no clue.

But they are always there. Just as mass cannot be created or destroyed, ditto for such lines of force.

Just my ideas, so very simple; if they are original, great!

The electromagnetic field travels, yes, at the speed of light in the vacuum.

> I was never any good at this this, but your
> search term is "retarded potential". For electricity and magnetic
> fields, see also "Lienard-Wiechert potential".

If they have anything interesting to say, then do say what is so interesting they have to say which may also make scientific sense. Names do not mean much to me. I go by what I find in text books, which form the basis for my insights.

> There's no experimental evidence for gravitons--gravitational waves
> have barely been detected--and no workable theory that includes them.
> Among physicists who have opinions on the matter, I think most expect
> that there is such a particle, though.

>> Like if the string breaks, the tension throughout has to become zero. Irrespective of length.

> It does become zero, but not immediately.

As soon as it snaps, over the entire length of the string the tension becomes zero. I don't see how it could be otherwise.

> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56833/slinky-base-does-not-immediately-fall-due-to-gravity

>> I do not know if anyone has explained all this earlier the way I have now, but yes, this may be my idea of string theory (what that really means to the theoretical physicists I have no clue!).
> ...

> This has nothing to do with string theory, which models electrons,
> quarks, photons, etc., as vibrational modes of tiny strings--either
> lengths or loops.

In other words, I may be up to something original. Good.

bt

On 10/04/2024 00:36, bertietaylor wrote:
> occam wrote:
>
>> On 05/04/2024 04:38, bertietaylor wrote:
>>> Quantum entanglement is the equivalent of mutual coupling, that is, how
>>> the state of one or all affects the state of each one.  In the quantum
>>> domain relating to gravitons, there is continuous such coupling
>>> proceeding at an instantaneous rate, for each graviton, thus accounting
>>> for the "action of a distance" known from even the ancient Newtonian
>>> electrodynamics.
>
>> Question:  If we had such a thing as a 'graviton radar' we would
>> instantly know of the death of a star say, a 100 light-years away, yet
>> we would still be able to see it for another 100 years?
>
> If you ask an astrologer, mostly likely they will say yes.

I was asking you, the next least qualified person.

< nonsense about astrology deleted>

> Stars are very far away, so the force from one star is very little and
> thus submerged in the background forces from other stars and galaxies.

According to your 'invisible string' theory, the stars are all
joined up by these strings. Also, the forces in these strings travel
'instantly' (according to you) as the 'tension between them is
instantaneous'. So, no matter how far away, they exercise equal
influence on each other, instantly.

Bertie, I hate to tell you this but you are on your way to Arindam
Banerjee status as a physicist. One more push... please.

Paul Wolff <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, at 11:26:05, Rich Ulrich posted:
> >On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:48:23 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >Lodder) wrote:
> >
> >me >
> >>> The U.S. will not award a patent for a perpetual motion machine
> >>> unless you provide a working model. I think that is an actual rule,
> >>> but I don't remmeber a statement by an authority.
>
> I was a patent attorney (European, not USA), but of course instructed
> many US attorneys for my clients. I'm at least ten years out of date
> now. The official rules are (were?) those in the Code of Federal
> Regulations, and don't include anything about PM machines explicitly.
>
> I may even have mentioned it here in the past, that I kept such a rule
> in reserve for any clients whom I suspected of overstepping the PM
> barrier, before they wasted any more of my time and their money. It was
> a kindness, really, but then I wasn't bound by statutory procedures.
> >>
> >>I don't think it is a rule.
> >>It is merely a policy that the US patent office
> >>will not even consider such paper-only applications.
>
> How would they do that? They are obliged to consider every duly formed
> application, before they can decide not to consider it.

'duly formed application' must be the key phrase.
When is an application 'duly framed'.
You cannot just patent empty claims.
(like merely pretending that you have invented something
to preempt others from truly patenting the real thing)
I don't see why 19th century patent officers could not consider
any proposal for a perpetual motion machine as 'not duly framed',
unless accompanied by a working model.
How could a patent examiner understand the proposal, otherwise?

> The only ground
> for rejecting a PM application that I can think of would be a provision
> within the definition of patentable inventions that excluded inventions
> contrary to science, but I can't now recall any such provision; and I
> doubt that the current cohort of USPTO Examiners has the scientific
> credentials to argue it through a lengthy dispute. Unless they keep a
> secret store of expert PM Examiners, of course.

Maybe they can channel the best of them all from Berne?

> Maybe the objection would be that of inadequate description (the
> specification has to tell others how to do it).
>
> I believe the British Patent Office had a policy of not arguing the
> matter; let them have the patent, as it won't inconvenience anybody else
> to be legally prevented from doing what is already impossible.
>
> It's surely a very long time since models were permitted to be filed as
> part of a US patent application. How would the application be processed
> in the offices of the USPTO?

There would be no need to 'process' the model.
Once the examiners have convinced themselves
that they can understand the application
they can go on with the paperwork only.

> >>(they said so long ago at a time when they were flooded
> >>with wanabee PM inventions)
>
> If that's true, I'd be interested to take a look.

I cannot supply that, obviously.
However, there is the pioneering book by Henry Dircks,
Perpetuum mobile; or, Search for self-motive power. (1861)
(also under the pseudonym of Percy Verance)

Dircks was a Victorian engineer, and a do-gooder.
He listed all known attemps at perpetual motion
in order to prevent wannabee inventors
from wasting their time and money on things
that were known not to work.
There has been a cheap reprint in Dover Books.
(but it can probably be found on-line)

> "We don't do that sort of thing."

At least everything already listed by Dircks
can be rejected out of hand as 'prior art',

Jan

On 10 Apr 2024, occam wrote
> On 10/04/2024 00:36, bertietaylor wrote:

>> Stars are very far away, so the force from one star is very
>> little and thus submerged in the background forces from other
>> stars and galaxies.
>
> According to your 'invisible string' theory, the stars are all
> joined up by these strings. Also, the forces in these strings
> travel 'instantly' (according to you) as the 'tension between them
> is instantaneous'. So, no matter how far away, they exercise equal
> influence on each other, instantly.
>
> Bertie, I hate to tell you this but you are on your way to Arindam
> Banerjee status as a physicist. One more push... please.

Has it been confirmed that Bertie and Arindam aren't close mates (or
even the same person)?

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Paul Wolff <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, at 11:26:05, Rich Ulrich posted:
>> >On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:48:23 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> >Lodder) wrote:
>> >
>> >me >
>> >>> The U.S. will not award a patent for a perpetual motion machine
>> >>> unless you provide a working model. I think that is an actual rule,
>> >>> but I don't remmeber a statement by an authority.
>>
>> I was a patent attorney (European, not USA), but of course instructed
>> many US attorneys for my clients. I'm at least ten years out of date
>> now. The official rules are (were?) those in the Code of Federal
>> Regulations, and don't include anything about PM machines explicitly.
>>
>> I may even have mentioned it here in the past, that I kept such a rule
>> in reserve for any clients whom I suspected of overstepping the PM
>> barrier, before they wasted any more of my time and their money. It was
>> a kindness, really, but then I wasn't bound by statutory procedures.
>> >>
>> >>I don't think it is a rule.
>> >>It is merely a policy that the US patent office
>> >>will not even consider such paper-only applications.
>>
>> How would they do that? They are obliged to consider every duly formed
>> application, before they can decide not to consider it.

> 'duly formed application' must be the key phrase.
> When is an application 'duly framed'.
...

"IV. UTILITY
"A claimed invention must be useful or have a utility that is
specific, substantial and credible.

"A rejection on the ground of lack of utility is appropriate
when (1) it is not apparent why the invention is “useful”
because applicant has failed to identify any specific and
substantial utility and there is no well established utility,
or (2) an assertion of specific and substantial utility for
the invention is not credible. *Such a rejection can include
the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, such as
inventions involving perpetual motion.*"

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html

Emphasis added.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 10-Apr-24 14:12, HVS wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2024, occam wrote
>> On 10/04/2024 00:36, bertietaylor wrote:
>
>
>>> Stars are very far away, so the force from one star is very
>>> little and thus submerged in the background forces from other
>>> stars and galaxies.
>>
>> According to your 'invisible string' theory, the stars are all
>> joined up by these strings. Also, the forces in these strings
>> travel 'instantly' (according to you) as the 'tension between them
>> is instantaneous'. So, no matter how far away, they exercise equal
>> influence on each other, instantly.
>>
>> Bertie, I hate to tell you this but you are on your way to Arindam
>> Banerjee status as a physicist. One more push... please.
>
> Has it been confirmed that Bertie and Arindam aren't close mates (or
> even the same person)?

That thought crossed my mind, but the styles are so different - and it
implies a very oblique approach that I don't believe is in Mr Banerjee's
nature.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 10/04/2024 15:12, HVS wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2024, occam wrote
>> On 10/04/2024 00:36, bertietaylor wrote:
>
>
>>> Stars are very far away, so the force from one star is very
>>> little and thus submerged in the background forces from other
>>> stars and galaxies.
>>
>> According to your 'invisible string' theory, the stars are all
>> joined up by these strings. Also, the forces in these strings
>> travel 'instantly' (according to you) as the 'tension between them
>> is instantaneous'. So, no matter how far away, they exercise equal
>> influence on each other, instantly.
>>
>> Bertie, I hate to tell you this but you are on your way to Arindam
>> Banerjee status as a physicist. One more push... please.
>
> Has it been confirmed that Bertie and Arindam aren't close mates (or
> even the same person)?

No, they are not the same. I detect no flowery Hindi in Bertie's
English. Plenty of Hindi-Bindi in Arindam's English. He is a true
Chaiwallah.

Bertie is a recent AB groupie. And he has not yet made the sort of
remarks Aridnam was well know for.

"These thoughts arise because the Einstein-Gandhi bigJew-guj-Jew two for
the price of one buy one get one free bunny-ah combo pack suppresses my
Vedic-Arya self with success." (Arindam Banerjee post.)

HVS <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:

> On 10 Apr 2024, occam wrote
> > On 10/04/2024 00:36, bertietaylor wrote:
>
>
> >> Stars are very far away, so the force from one star is very
> >> little and thus submerged in the background forces from other
> >> stars and galaxies.
> >
> > According to your 'invisible string' theory, the stars are all
> > joined up by these strings. Also, the forces in these strings
> > travel 'instantly' (according to you) as the 'tension between them
> > is instantaneous'. So, no matter how far away, they exercise equal
> > influence on each other, instantly.
> >
> > Bertie, I hate to tell you this but you are on your way to Arindam
> > Banerjee status as a physicist. One more push... please.
>
> Has it been confirmed that Bertie and Arindam aren't close mates

Always possible.

(or even the same person)?

Also possible, but a quick look doesn't make that likely,

Jan

In article <XnsB150909C59AAEwhhvans@135.181.20.170>,
office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk says...
>
> On 10 Apr 2024, occam wrote
> > On 10/04/2024 00:36, bertietaylor wrote:
>
>
> >> Stars are very far away, so the force from one star is very
> >> little and thus submerged in the background forces from other
> >> stars and galaxies.
> >
> > According to your 'invisible string' theory, the stars are all
> > joined up by these strings. Also, the forces in these strings
> > travel 'instantly' (according to you) as the 'tension between them
> > is instantaneous'. So, no matter how far away, they exercise equal
> > influence on each other, instantly.
> >
> > Bertie, I hate to tell you this but you are on your way to Arindam
> > Banerjee status as a physicist. One more push... please.
>
> Has it been confirmed that Bertie and Arindam aren't close mates (or
> even the same person)?

Unlikely, as Bertie has not yet accused anyone of being
a racist.

Janet

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024, at 13:03:06, J. J. Lodder posted:
>Paul Wolff <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, at 11:26:05, Rich Ulrich posted:
>> >On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:48:23 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> >Lodder) wrote:
>> >
>> >me >
>> >>> The U.S. will not award a patent for a perpetual motion machine
>> >>> unless you provide a working model. I think that is an actual rule,
>> >>> but I don't remmeber a statement by an authority.
>>
>> I was a patent attorney (European, not USA), but of course instructed
>> many US attorneys for my clients. I'm at least ten years out of date
>> now. The official rules are (were?) those in the Code of Federal
>> Regulations, and don't include anything about PM machines explicitly.
>>
>> I may even have mentioned it here in the past, that I kept such a rule
>> in reserve for any clients whom I suspected of overstepping the PM
>> barrier, before they wasted any more of my time and their money. It was
>> a kindness, really, but then I wasn't bound by statutory procedures.
>> >>
>> >>I don't think it is a rule.
>> >>It is merely a policy that the US patent office
>> >>will not even consider such paper-only applications.
>>
>> How would they do that? They are obliged to consider every duly formed
>> application, before they can decide not to consider it.
>
>'duly formed application' must be the key phrase.
>When is an application 'duly framed'.

When it complies with the law and the working regulations.

>You cannot just patent empty claims.

Of course you can't. You must provide a compliant application form (oath
or declaration signed by the inventor or inventors, and other
information), an enabling specification, drawings where appropriate, and
an abstract too.

>(like merely pretending that you have invented something
> to preempt others from truly patenting the real thing)
>I don't see why 19th century patent officers could not consider
>any proposal for a perpetual motion machine as 'not duly framed',
>unless accompanied by a working model.

The words. The specification. The teaching. And who's talking about the
nineteenth century?

>How could a patent examiner understand the proposal, otherwise?

A patent demands disclosure in writing.
>
>> The only ground
>> for rejecting a PM application that I can think of would be a provision
>> within the definition of patentable inventions that excluded inventions
>> contrary to science, but I can't now recall any such provision; and I
>> doubt that the current cohort of USPTO Examiners has the scientific
>> credentials to argue it through a lengthy dispute. Unless they keep a
>> secret store of expert PM Examiners, of course.
>
>Maybe they can channel the best of them all from Berne?

You mean one of those dreamers just filling in time at a desk before
reverting to his hobby in the evenings?
>
>> Maybe the objection would be that of inadequate description (the
>> specification has to tell others how to do it).
>>
>> I believe the British Patent Office had a policy of not arguing the
>> matter; let them have the patent, as it won't inconvenience anybody else
>> to be legally prevented from doing what is already impossible.
>>
>> It's surely a very long time since models were permitted to be filed as
>> part of a US patent application. How would the application be processed
>> in the offices of the USPTO?
>
>There would be no need to 'process' the model.

It's the application that needs to be processed. What I am telling you
is that models of jet engines, for example, do not lend themselves to
printing and putting on library shelves, never mind electronic filing,
recovery and distribution systems. And where should the storage space be
located?

>Once the examiners have convinced themselves
>that they can understand the application
>they can go on with the paperwork only.

No, of course they can't. Public availability is essential to the patent
system. I can download the file wrapper of any US patent (it's called
"file wrapper" but it is the complete record), and that would be a
trifle hard if the invention was specified in a working model of a
Bessemer converter.
>
>> >>(they said so long ago at a time when they were flooded
>> >>with wanabee PM inventions)
>>
>> If that's true, I'd be interested to take a look.
>
>I cannot supply that, obviously.
>However, there is the pioneering book by Henry Dircks,
>Perpetuum mobile; or, Search for self-motive power. (1861)
>(also under the pseudonym of Percy Verance)
>
>Dircks was a Victorian engineer, and a do-gooder.
>He listed all known attemps at perpetual motion
>in order to prevent wannabee inventors
>from wasting their time and money on things
>that were known not to work.
>There has been a cheap reprint in Dover Books.
>(but it can probably be found on-line)
>
>> "We don't do that sort of thing."
>
>At least everything already listed by Dircks
>can be rejected out of hand as 'prior art',

Everything previously published is part of the state of the art. And
note that "state of the art" does NOT mean only the very latest designs.
--
Paul W

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024, at 13:40:49, jerryfriedman posted:
>J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> Paul Wolff <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, at 11:26:05, Rich Ulrich posted:
>>> >On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:48:23 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>> >Lodder) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >me >
>>> >>> The U.S. will not award a patent for a perpetual motion machine
>>> >>> unless you provide a working model. I think that is an actual rule,
>>> >>> but I don't remmeber a statement by an authority.
>>> I was a patent attorney (European, not USA), but of course
>>>instructed
>>> many US attorneys for my clients. I'm at least ten years out of date
>>>now. The official rules are (were?) those in the Code of Federal
>>>Regulations, and don't include anything about PM machines explicitly.
>>> I may even have mentioned it here in the past, that I kept such a
>>>rule
>>> in reserve for any clients whom I suspected of overstepping the PM
>>>barrier, before they wasted any more of my time and their money. It was
>>> a kindness, really, but then I wasn't bound by statutory procedures.
>>> >>
>>> >>I don't think it is a rule.
>>> >>It is merely a policy that the US patent office
>>> >>will not even consider such paper-only applications.
>>> How would they do that? They are obliged to consider every duly
>>>formed
>>> application, before they can decide not to consider it.
>
>> 'duly formed application' must be the key phrase.
>> When is an application 'duly framed'.
>..
>
>"IV. UTILITY
>"A claimed invention must be useful or have a utility that is
>specific, substantial and credible.
>
>"A rejection on the ground of lack of utility is appropriate
>when (1) it is not apparent why the invention is “useful”
>because applicant has failed to identify any specific and
>substantial utility and there is no well established utility,
>or (2) an assertion of specific and substantial utility for
>the invention is not credible. *Such a rejection can include
>the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, such as
>inventions involving perpetual motion.*"
>
>https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html
>
>Emphasis added.
>
Manual of patent examination procedure? Something like that, but not law
(unless it is, but I don't think so. But then I never tried to prosecute
any patent application anywhere in the world for a perpetual motion
machine). Yes, an examiner may challenge the applicant on the statutory
grounds (American law may use a different term than "statutory", which
is what English law would say).
--
Paul W

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> HVS <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:

>> On 10 Apr 2024, occam wrote
>> > On 10/04/2024 00:36, bertietaylor wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Stars are very far away, so the force from one star is very
>> >> little and thus submerged in the background forces from other
>> >> stars and galaxies.
>> >
>> > According to your 'invisible string' theory, the stars are all
>> > joined up by these strings. Also, the forces in these strings
>> > travel 'instantly' (according to you) as the 'tension between them
>> > is instantaneous'. So, no matter how far away, they exercise equal
>> > influence on each other, instantly.
>> >
>> > Bertie, I hate to tell you this but you are on your way to Arindam
>> > Banerjee status as a physicist. One more push... please.
>>
>> Has it been confirmed that Bertie and Arindam aren't close mates

> Always possible.

> (or even the same person)?

I should be so lucky.

bt

> Also possible, but a quick look doesn't make that likely,

> Jan

occam wrote:

> On 10/04/2024 00:36, bertietaylor wrote:
>> occam wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/04/2024 04:38, bertietaylor wrote:
>>>> Quantum entanglement is the equivalent of mutual coupling, that is, how
>>>> the state of one or all affects the state of each one.  In the quantum
>>>> domain relating to gravitons, there is continuous such coupling
>>>> proceeding at an instantaneous rate, for each graviton, thus accounting
>>>> for the "action of a distance" known from even the ancient Newtonian
>>>> electrodynamics.
>>
>>> Question:  If we had such a thing as a 'graviton radar' we would
>>> instantly know of the death of a star say, a 100 light-years away, yet
>>> we would still be able to see it for another 100 years?
>>
>> If you ask an astrologer, mostly likely they will say yes.

> I was asking you, the next least qualified person.

If there was something called a "graviton radar" mentioned in textbooks I might have given my opinion.

> < nonsense about astrology deleted>

Now that is rude.

>> Stars are very far away, so the force from one star is very little and
>> thus submerged in the background forces from other stars and galaxies.

> According to your 'invisible string' theory, the stars are all
> joined up by these strings. Also, the forces in these strings travel
> 'instantly' (according to you) as the 'tension between them is
> instantaneous'. So, no matter how far away, they exercise equal
> influence on each other, instantly.

It is just an extension of Newton's universal law of gravitation. Which is, very mass attracts every other mass in the universe.
My (maybe) extension is that there has to be some string sort a thing attached to them, otherwise how can this attraction occur.

> Bertie, I hate to tell you this but you are on your way to Arindam
> Banerjee status as a physicist. One more push... please.

Oh, I am overawed by the comparison... but I would not like to be killfiled for any originality I may have shown, please!

bt

bertietaylor wrote:

> occam wrote:

>> On 10/04/2024 00:36, bertietaylor wrote:
>>> occam wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/04/2024 04:38, bertietaylor wrote:
>>>>> Quantum entanglement is the equivalent of mutual coupling, that is, how
>>>>> the state of one or all affects the state of each one.  In the quantum
>>>>> domain relating to gravitons, there is continuous such coupling
>>>>> proceeding at an instantaneous rate, for each graviton, thus accounting
>>>>> for the "action of a distance" known from even the ancient Newtonian
>>>>> electrodynamics.
>>>
>>>> Question:  If we had such a thing as a 'graviton radar' we would
>>>> instantly know of the death of a star say, a 100 light-years away, yet
>>>> we would still be able to see it for another 100 years?
>>>
>>> If you ask an astrologer, mostly likely they will say yes.

>> I was asking you, the next least qualified person.

> If there was something called a "graviton radar" mentioned in textbooks I might have given my opinion.

>> < nonsense about astrology deleted>

> Now that is rude.

>>> Stars are very far away, so the force from one star is very little and
>>> thus submerged in the background forces from other stars and galaxies.

>> According to your 'invisible string' theory, the stars are all
>> joined up by these strings. Also, the forces in these strings travel
>> 'instantly' (according to you) as the 'tension between them is
>> instantaneous'. So, no matter how far away, they exercise equal
>> influence on each other, instantly.

> It is just an extension of Newton's universal law of gravitation. Which is, very mass attracts every other mass in the universe.
> My (maybe) extension is that there has to be some string sort a thing attached to them, otherwise how can this attraction occur.

So I should say, instead of string theory what I propose is SPRING THEORY!

>> Bertie, I hate to tell you this but you are on your way to Arindam
>> Banerjee status as a physicist. One more push... please.

> Oh, I am overawed by the comparison... but I would not like to be killfiled for any originality I may have shown, please!

> bt