Posted on 11/09/2005 10:57:31 AM PST by aculeus
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- The U.S. patent office has reportedly granted a patent for an anti-gravity device -- breaking its rule to reject inventions that defy the laws of physics.
The journal Nature said patent 6,960,975 was granted Nov. 1 to Boris Volfson of Huntington, Ind., for a space vehicle propelled by a superconducting shield that alters the curvature of space-time outside the craft in a way that counteracts gravity.
One of the main theoretical arguments against anti-gravity is that it implies the availability of unlimited energy.
"If you design an anti-gravity machine, you've got a perpetual-motion machine," Robert Park of the American Physical Society told Nature.
Park said the action shows patent examiners are being duped by false science.
Copyright 2005 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
I think it has been a mistake to deny these patents. They should grant a patent each on perpetual motion and on anti-gravity. Then they can reject all future applications on the grounds that it's been done.
Dollar bills? I want one that grows C notes!
He patented Hillary's Lovely Thighs?
Wait, those don't counteract gravity, do they?
I think we can all agree that they are a repelling force.
She never has to worry about shining them, they're made of
Patent leather.
The relative weakness of gravity (it should be stronger to make the numbers work) intrigues me.
Some iterations of string theory (for what that is worth) postulates that gravity IS strong, but the effect bleeding off elsewhere.
If true (and observable in some meaningful way), I would be hopeful that the relative stregth and weakness could be increased or decreased.
Not so much "anti-gravity" as "no gravity," making lift a much easier business.
Gotta grow 'em first. Then we can selectively cultivate 'em.
I have a feeling that should that bloody thing ever get invented/built...the energy requirements will be so great that it will be much cheaper to pop your cargo onto an 18 wheeler and truck it cross country.
Space Elevator?
"The standard idea of 'anti-gravity' is that of a hovering vehicle. I think if such a device were to switch off gravity's effect on it, said device would instantly be flung into space."
I initially thought, "no it would sit right where it is until some force acted upon it." Then I remembered the Earth (and Sun, for that matter) are cranking along through space at a pretty good clip, so the device would, in fact, soon be parted.
But no so much "flung" as "left behind."
Tesla made an Earthquake machine. Who knows what has been invented and kept under wraps.
But, I doubt anti-gravity is one of them.
Genetic engineering?
Love this stuff BUMP
Of course, if step 1 takes a hundred times more energy than you get back in 4, it doesn't yield net work. So the statement is true if and only if the alleged gravity stopper doesn't care about energy costs every much.
The patent office ran out of room long ago for all these working models. Not required or even allowed anymore.
It's Gravity Day on FR.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1518973/posts?page=62#62
One of the main theoretical arguments against anti-gravity is that it implies the availability of unlimited energy....if ya know what yer doin'... ;')
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.