Strange

4 minutes ago, h20 said:

First patent legal framework is not uniform across the world and its economic areas, second you dont know what you are talking about, "inventive enough" is a subjective argument ...

OK. We will ignore the fact that I worked on patents for a couple of decades.

Yes, things like "inventive step" and "obvious" are subjective and it can be quite hard to persuade the examiner that a patent really is inventive.

You are correct, I am not that familiar with Swedish patent law. But I assume that if you were to develop a product based on this idea (as you stated in your first post) you would want to patent it in, potentially, the largest markets (e.g. the USA).

You are, obviously, correct that it is not possible to patent an idea or (in most countries) a piece of software. However, it is possible in principle to patent the sort of thing you talked about in your first post: a cloud-connected valve and acoustic-flow measurement system. You even posted a photo of a prototype device. That falls squarely in the domain of things that are patentable.

3 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

Most of them directly use GEM, like Gravity Probe B

Again, your source contradicts this: 

Quote

The much smaller frame-dragging effect is an example of gravitomagnetism. 

There are two effects, the smaller one could be explained by GEM. The other cannot. 

It is up to you provide the detailed, quantitative analysis to support your claims. Until you do that, there is nothing much to discuss.

14 minutes ago, h20 said:

It cannot be patented

There might be objections that it is not inventive enough (one of the criteria) but a good patent agent should be able to get round that.

1 minute ago, h20 said:

Yes, thats one of the applications for it, this proof of concepts makes use of the man with the stick principle:

https://www.lep.co.uk/business/meet-leak-detectors-and-their-wooden-listening-stick-656032

and takes it next level with artificial intelligence and a wide training set for a neural network. 

That is a pretty cool idea. It is shame you have now lost the chance patent it!

1 minute ago, h20 said:

Again, WHO is talking about a PRODUCT?, i am talking about an idea and its applications in real life

I thought you were:

On 8/7/2020 at 8:54 AM, h20 said:

Given that i have no experience as a product manager i ask the following:

Does any of you see this as a useful product?

But it sounds like you are just here to be disruptive.

34 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

But which experiment would bring certainty that we need to give up flat spacetime?

All of them?

You are suggesting an odd view of science. A more meaningful question would be, what experiment would have falsified the model of spacetime in GR (answer: any of them producing a different result from GR).

Maybe you should be asking what experiment would falsify GEM. I can't answer that because I am not familiar with it. But I note that your source says:

Quote

The most common version of GEM is valid only far from isolated sources, and for slowly moving test particles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism

So, if we had started off down that route, sooner or later an experiment or observation would have shown it to be wrong. (We are still hoping for such a result for GR but, unfortunately, it hasn't happened yet.)

35 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity :

- Perihelion precession of Mercury is GEM: "Gravitoelectric effects" + Lense–Thirring precession

- Deflection of light by the Sun - would need some EM-GEM coupling: slowing down of EM propagation in presence of gravitational field,

- gravitational time dilation - clocks are usually based on EM propagation e.g. in atoms, so slowing down of EM would slow down clocks ... the question is other interactions: what do we know about gravitational time dilation e.g. for muon decay?

- Gravity Probe B tested GEM,

- gravitational waves - also in GEM ...

... black holes - sure we have objects of extremely high density, but how to distinguish what is happening inside?

These are all vague, hand wavy, qualitative claims of similarity. If you want to defend GEM as an alternative to GR, then you need to show, in mathematical detail, that it produces the same match to observations as GR (or better).

If you want to attempt that, then you would also need to do it in the Speculations forum.

9 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

his introduction of general relativity a century ago seems to be event of extremely low probability (?) - so what if it wouldn't happen?

Why do you think this? It was based on contemporary physics (known deficiencies in Newtonian gravity, special relativity*, etc). He worked with others to develop the theory. It might have been another 5 years or another 50, but someone would have worked it out sooner or later. (There were already geometrical interpretations of Maxwell's equations, for example.)

* Special relativity didn't require Einstein, either. All the component parts were there, the most significant thing he did was to pull them together with an underlying mechanism. Again, someone else would have done that sooner or later.

12 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

Without Einstein we would probably develop further Heavisides' GEM

Until it was found to be inadequate. Then it would have been replaced. (See also the Rutherford and Bohr models of the atom. Or science in general.)

4 minutes ago, nec209 said:

I think it's that if you try to measure the location of an electron, it will change to a different location. To measure the location you need photons but the photon will bounce off the electron and the electron will be in a different location and  so the measurement is not correct anymore.

That is the observer effect, not the HUP.

Do you need to explain how the illusionist does it? You could leave it as a mystery even for the reader (you could keep teasing them: "The trick works by ..." At that moment the telephone rings.)

51 minutes ago, Labradore said:

The plot is sewn with thick threads

Maybe this is a clue. How about threads (or a net) of fibres hung from a wire high above the river. They are soaked in something flammable and when lit, there will be a wall of fire.

Or hang a thin sheet of transparent plastic which can't be seen in the dark, then project really bright (laser?) coloured lights onto it (a variation on "Pepper's Ghost" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper's_ghost)

Maybe a local magic club might be a better bet than a university professor: scientists are notoriously gullible when it comes to magic tricks 🙂

On the subject of Einstein being wrong:

25 minutes ago, h20 said:

I think you overreacted by highlighting my post in Red upfront

Your first warning was in GREEN.

You may find when trying to develop and market a new product that you are often challenged on the technical, marketing, financial and other aspects of your business. Especially by people you need to help you (e.g. investors). You might want to think about how you would react to such challenges when they happen. Would potential investors be impressed by an angry tirade in response to a comment on your plans? Would they be more or less willing to invest if you make false statements?

Maybe you need to find a forum more suited to your temperament and goals. There is generally little discussion of product or business development here. And we do require people to obey the rules, especially the one about being civil.

9 minutes ago, h20 said:

DEFINITION OF CENSORSHIP

Maybe you should look up the definition of "rules" as well. You agreed to several when you joined. Now you are complaining about them. 

2 minutes ago, cladking said:

It is the crux of my every argument.

There are no two cats alike so therefore it follows not more than a single "cat" can exist.   "Cats" can't exist because there can be no hard and fast definition to put all things into the categories of "cats" and "not cats".  

For instance at what exact point does a pregnant cat become "two cats"?  

Wow. It's like a 14 year old has just discovered philosophy. What next? Trees falling in empty forests? The universe created last Thursday? One hand clapping?

Maybe in a few years you can graduate to The Ship of Theseus / Trigger's Broom.

1 hour ago, h20 said:

The fact of it having to be portable is otherwise the cost of installation will not make the device so attractive.

So, effectively, you are using "portable" to denote low cost, ease of use, simple installation, etc.

Well, good luck. It is not always easy developing and marketing a new product but it should be valuable experience.

2 minutes ago, cladking said:

there's no such thing as "cats"

Even for you, that is a pretty bold position.

2 minutes ago, cladking said:

I never wanted to believe something that wasn't true

47 minutes ago, joigus said:

Any change in f would affect your field instantaneously.

Or, presumably, at any speed faster than light?

9 minutes ago, h20 said:

None of them apply, we do not genrate a sound and then measure, we listen to the sound of the pipe and then infere ...

OK. I hadn't looked in that much detail.

9 minutes ago, h20 said:

Do you know the price and power consumtion of those devices? Not suitable for portable iot applications...

I was going to suggest that your selling point could be very low cost, to open up a wider range of applications.

Portable, though? Where do you see that being used? (Not being negative, genuinely curious!)

8 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Sir Roger Penrose has been doing some work on developing a mathematical model for how the brain actually works. 

The word "actually" is a bit of a stretch there. He has some way-out ideas, not accepted by most neurologists (or even most physicists). I would be very surprised if that has any relationship to how the brain "actually" works.

8 hours ago, Conjurer said:

It has really got me thinking that if that is true, then there is a part of our minds that we cannot normally access that can obtain information with a spooky action at a distance throughout space and time. 

I doubt even Penrose would go along with that.

2 hours ago, h20 said:

Cool nothing exists yet

https://patents.justia.com/patent/20150082911

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050011278

There were hundreds more results, some probably duplicates, so the concept is not novel. You would need to think of something to make a product like this competitive (and avoid infringing any existing patents).

11 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

Arc and wires would move perpendicular to magnetic field. Rail guns work this way, if the current is in flux over time.

The rails could push each other apart, and the two rails can push on the projectile. But I'm not sure how or if that applies to a single wire.

11 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

When the arc reaches a point past the bounds of the box

Where is the box? It doesn't appear in your diagram.

11 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

the wires have moved while the arc can return to the battery

If the wires move apart then you may not be able to support the arc (depending on voltage, available current, humidity and many other factors) and so the circuit would break.

11 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

The original scenario had the wires bent away from each other because I assumed the arc would take the shortest path and would be forced downward away from the center of the current loop while the current in the wires would be forced away from the center of the current loop at each given slice of time.

The arc will take the shortest path, which is a straight line. This seems inconsistent with your "forced downward". You need to calculate the strength of the magnetic field generated by the wires and see if it is enough to displace the path of the electrons. (I am guessing not, based purely on the size of the coils and magnets in old CRT tubes)

The current in the wires would remain in the wires, it can't be "forced" anywhere. Do you mean the wires would be deflected by the magnetic field generated by the spark? Any such effect would be tiny. But it depends on how the wires fixed, their stiffness, the current involved, etc.

I think this is all too vague (and confusing; you keep introducing new things when answering questions) to make any useful conclusions. You need to be more specific about the voltage, current, length of the wire and their mechanical properties, air pressure, temperature, relative humidity, 

18 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

In this scenario, the positive wire's exposed end is 1mm from the closest end of the negative blue wire.

What gives the red wire a positive charge? It doesn't appear to be connect anything. Or is it supposed to be connected to the green (power source?) through the insulator?

18 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

The electric field applied is over 3kv to exploit thermionic emission, and induce a spark.

Where are you expecting the spark to occur? Between the points you have labelled "+" and "-"?

And why do you want a spark at all? Why not just complete the circuit with a wire?

18 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

If the current was to increase during thermionic emission, would the changing magnetic field push all current away from the center of the current loop?

I don't think the magnetic field caused by the current will affect the wire carrying that current. But it would affect another, nearby, current-carrying wire.

This is still pretty crude, but is this why you are trying to represent?

2 minutes ago, The victorious truther said:

IF. . . you can have empty spacetime and our substantialist interpretation of general relativity holds water in the possible absence of quantum fields. Or that it holds at all. Map versus terrain issue here?

You can model empty spacetime. Obviously there is no such thing in our universe.

3 minutes ago, The victorious truther said:

Yes, it has the properties that you ascribe to a muon then after some allotted time (certain amount of ticks by physical clocks in nature or in the lab) it changes to have there be other particles with unique relational/monadic properties (mass, charge, spin, etc) but so what we regraded as the muon no longer exists. . . change has occurred due to a difference of properties after a certain number of clock ticks from one of our physical clocks/internal clock has gone by. 

So you are saying that the muon knows when to decay by looking at the lab clock?

3 minutes ago, The victorious truther said:

As far as I know we do not happen to know that time is quantized or that there should be a benefit mathematically to experimentally show the improvement of moving from a real number line representation abstractly of change to that of the natural numbers.

GR only works if space and time are continuous. But then again, we know that GR probably needs to be modified at quantum scales.

Good article on the possibilities here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/06/14/are-space-and-time-quantized-maybe-not-says-science/

1 minute ago, michel123456 said:

Please explain. You have a 4D spacetime. How do you end with an interaction like gravity while being empty?

I guess this (like so many questions) depends how you define "gravity". If you mean something causing masses to move under the effects of other masses, then obviously that does't happen in empty spacetime. But if you use gravity to mean the curvature of spacetime that would cause such movement if mass were present, then it does exist. (This is explored theoretically using "test masses" that have effectively zero mass.)

Just now, drumbo said:

The big bang. If there was no quanta of space, you could just keep compressing everything together more and more. But you can't, you can only fit so much inside of a quanta of space, and that's why there was a big bang.

That incoherent nonsense is not evidence for anything.

Just now, drumbo said:

If you observed time passing between your observation of the intact muon and its subsequent decay, then that implies a change in the system since you could not perceive the passage of time otherwise, and therefore is not a refutation the existence of the quanta.

I can't see how it has anything to do with quantisation of time, even if it were support for the idea that change is required (which it isn't).

Again, what evidence do you have for the quantisation of time or space?

7 minutes ago, nec209 said:

The Heisenberg's uncertainty is saying if you are trying to measure something on quantum level the measurement process itself interferes with the object you are measuring and  increasing the error in the measurement. 

It doesn't say that at all.

You are describing the observer effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)