Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Wormhole Generator (Kinda) Patented

Posted by Hemos on Tue Mar 14, 2000 06:45 PM
from the i-want-one dept.
Faw writes "Someone has filed a patent for a wormhole generator. It says it is a hyper-light speed antenna, but to me it looks like a wormhole. What do you think?" Here's the abstract: "A method to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves which comprises generating opposing magnetic fields having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating a heat source along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating an accelerator parallel to and in close proximity to the heat source, thereby creating an input and output port; and generating a communications signal into the input and output port, thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than light. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Wormhole Generator (Kinda) Patented | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 405 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 | 3 | 4
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:24PM
  • accelerating plant growth by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:18PM
  • Slower than light? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:49PM
  • Re:I'm not surprised by hadron (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @03:40AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by shogun (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @11:46PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by PHroD (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:12PM
  • bah! by Nate Fox (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:47PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Parsec (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @06:34AM
  • Re:It's a joke guys ... by OrbNobz (Score:1) Tuesday March 21 2000, @09:26AM
  • Re:Home page of the inventor.... by Rick_T (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @06:28PM
  • Does that mean ... by Taco Cowboy (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:34PM
  • Re:What do _I_ think? by unitron (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:59PM
  • Re:Are the parts at Radio Shack? by unitron (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:04PM
  • Too bad Slashdot doesn't have one by unitron (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:36PM
  • Let Me Guess... by ocie (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:53PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by ocie (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:00PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? Huh? by ocie (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:36PM
  • IBM's site down by Anonymous Cow (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @10:48PM
  • Yeah right by imp (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:29PM
  • Pseudo-Scientific mumbo-jumbo by RedOctober (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @08:28PM
  • Now all we need are the inertial dampners... by hackel (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:58PM
  • Re:Circular File by W. Justice Black (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @06:01PM
  • Yargh. Damn submit button. by Serf (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:28PM
  • Wormhole? by qnonsense (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:55PM
  • Re:Any volunteers? by ArsonSmith (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:13PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Deimos_ (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:15PM
  • Re:Not quite, Mr. Newton (crash course in relativi by Deimos_ (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:19PM
  • Um.. by Templar (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:05PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Helge Hafting (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @09:38PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Helge Hafting (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @09:42PM
  • Re:Only for perpetual motion claims. by Helge Hafting (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @09:48PM
  • Re:Faster than light communication? by Helge Hafting (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @09:55PM
  • Re:(Kinda) relevant Simpson quotes. by pyarbro69 (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @11:42AM
  • I dunno man by Roofus (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:05PM
  • I have a quantum physics exam next week....... by Roofus (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:09PM
  • Re:First Post! by jawad (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:59PM
  • But of course it accelerates plant growth by dark409 (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @08:47PM
  • Addition to the Slashdot servers :) by Felinoid (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @12:51AM
  • Arghh!! by raka (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @03:52AM
  • Re:Wormhole? by jmtpi (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:05PM
  • Patent lunacy by SpacePunk (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @05:14AM
  • Re:YAY! by angelo (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @02:46AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Gravatite (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:21PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by M1000 (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @07:53AM
  • I'm naive--Don't they still require it exist? by blach (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:09PM
  • Re:Circular File by mastagee (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @06:29PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by KingOStars (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @09:51AM
  • Re:Now all we need are the inertial dampners... by bholzm1 (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @07:09PM
  • Re:Is it open sourced? by SEWilco (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:51PM
  • Re:I think we're missing something very important. by SEWilco (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:54PM
  • Re:Beneficial side effect leaves more questions by SEWilco (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:02PM
  • Re:I'm naive--Don't they still require it exist? by SEWilco (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:49PM
  • Good news by cluke (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @02:10AM
  • If you look at the software patents... by FutileRedemption (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:54PM
  • Re:accelerating plant growth by lhand (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @07:46AM
  • Weird patents... by eriks (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:37PM
  • Re:Ender's Game, anyone? by Thunderhead (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @08:14PM
  • It's a joke guys ... by squireson (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @11:12PM
  • It's not a Wormhole Generator... by Gothland (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:12PM
  • First Post! by slickwillie (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:55PM
  • Shit! by slickwillie (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:57PM
  • Re:This isn't NEWS... by pvolt (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:42PM
  • Hey, neat by Dreamweaver (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:14PM
  • Re:It's a joke guys ... by miquels (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @02:00AM
  • Nope, completely different concept by boarder (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @08:55PM
  • Haiku (Patent Pending) by drivers (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:26PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? Huh? by SETY (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:33PM
  • Re:How about forwards in time by Piquan (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @08:51PM
  • inet relevance by commbat (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:06PM
  • Antenna, not transporter by CentrX (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:00PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Weezul (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @09:06PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Weezul (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @09:27PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Cylix (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:13PM
  • Is it open sourced? by tak amalak (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:57PM
  • Scalar waves by CrowKiller (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:18PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by trauma (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @06:39PM
  • Re:New Tenses by iainh (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @08:06PM
  • Re:How about forwards in time by penguinicide (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:51PM
  • Re: it's the law by penguinicide (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:54PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Sleen (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @06:13AM
  • It's Funny. Laugh.(nt) by MostlyHarmless (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:16PM
  • Not quite, Mr. Newton (crash course in relativity) by adubey (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:33PM
  • Now maybe /. can load faster by eshaft (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @08:56AM
  • What's also disturbing... by Draxinusom (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @12:17AM
  • Re:Only for perpetual motion claims. by Ixnorp (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:36PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? Huh? by lanzz (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @01:30AM
  • Re:Now all we need are the inertial dampners... by dan_linder (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @09:09AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Darby (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @06:43PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Darby (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @06:48PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Darby (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:43PM
  • I'm going to patent the warp drive.... by smoondog (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:09PM
  • your question hurts my brain by tidge (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:21PM
  • Re:Ha! This is obviously a fraud... by mclearn (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @08:03AM
  • Re:Patent approved :-) by ssb201 (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @08:30AM
  • Amazing invention! by Doctor Dark (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @03:33AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by decomp (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:28PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Niko. (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @04:58AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by The Famous Druid (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:23PM
  • device does not violate relativity by mize (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @10:25AM
  • Space, time, and SpaceTime by eel (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:43PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by artemis67 (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @05:41AM
  • same thing with me, /. just sucks ass nowadays by xHost (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @02:25AM
  • Hmmm...I'm not so sure...:) by naasking (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:31PM
  • More oddities by naasking (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:52PM
  • Yet more oddities (sigh)... by naasking (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:05PM
  • Re:YAY! by polymorf (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @06:38PM
  • Home page of the inventor.... by Devout Capitalist (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:30PM
  • Future Open Inventions by icing (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @11:08PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by PsiPsiStar (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @09:08PM
  • Re:But of course it accelerates plant growth by jpatokal (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @11:54PM
  • all part of my master plan... by Deitheres (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:13PM
  • Re:I'm not surprised by Tungz10 (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @07:43PM
  • Hyper-Light-Speed Resources by Schnake (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @02:32AM
  • Re:Faster than light communication? by Keithel (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:23PM
  • Re:Only for perpetual motion claims. by Above (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:42PM
  • Re:What's wrong with wackyness? by Above (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @07:23PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Punto (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:46PM
  • Re: What is FTL anyway? by zevans (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @03:13AM
  • The Patent office is a business like any other by yuriwho (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @07:32PM
  • Re:Circular File by Nyarly (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @07:58AM
  • Re:Ender's Game, anyone? by Cullpepper (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @03:51AM
  • New Tenses by jamesl (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:41PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by AoT (Score:1) Thursday March 16 2000, @07:06AM
  • Re:There's more by GossG (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @10:49AM
  • Re:Ansible by GossG (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @11:19AM
  • Pride by quecojones (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:54PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Username (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @06:07AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by justinjtp (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:02PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by B'Trey (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @03:01AM
  • It's about bilking investors by SethJohnson (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @08:27AM
  • Faster than light communication? by gruntboy (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:59PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by bytesex (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @04:48AM
  • Oh no, not another transporter accident! by 2bfree (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:03PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Wigs (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:34PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? Huh? by SilverSun (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:09PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by SilverSun (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:41PM
  • Patent website probably censored by jfern (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:14PM
  • Re:Not quite, Mr. Newton (crash course in relativi by jfern (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:30PM
  • Re:Now all we need are the inertial dampners... by jfern (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @06:20PM
  • How to build it - all parts at Radio Shack?? by arcsNsparx (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @06:10AM
  • Do I hear 'Interview'? by shlong (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:34PM
  • Patent first - invent and ask questions later. by gatekeep (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:00PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Uberminky (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:55PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by TheLaser (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:53PM
  • Re:NO big deal! by newmzz (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @11:24PM
  • Sad by maxxon (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @09:47AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Jaçana (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:03PM
  • Hours of fun for the w(orm)hole family by hypergeek (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:45PM
  • Re:Is it open sourced? by Shadox Tsurien (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:03PM
  • If Time Travel Were Possible, We would already kno by RobFlynn (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @12:26AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Gorobei (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:03PM
  • Backwards in time?? by ActiveSex (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:53PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by bpellin (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:46PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Rei (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @04:17AM
  • Re:I think Its Pretty Cool by YIAAL (Score:1) Thursday March 16 2000, @08:20AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Peace_Frog (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @08:25PM
  • Prior Art. by istartedi (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:12PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by pischke (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @05:30AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by ElAurian (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @02:16AM
  • This will be great for my mars base :-) by Dungeon Dweller (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @05:06AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Dungeon Dweller (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @05:13AM
  • I can hear the teleporters... by krogoth (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:55PM
  • Re:Only for perpetual motion claims. by luckykaa (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @11:29PM
  • Hey! I invented this years ago by luckykaa (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @11:39PM
  • Hyper-light antenna? I think not by Ertai (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @07:16PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Jeff Brown (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @04:21AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by HenrysCat (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @05:56AM
  • Re:It's a joke guys ... by HenrysCat (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @12:14AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by HenrysCat (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @12:20AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by HenrysCat (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @12:32AM
  • Re:Scalar waves by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @06:44PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by akamil (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @11:08PM
  • Read It Carefully by Prof_Dagoski (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @08:05AM
  • Re:Wormhole physics by acgetchell (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @02:25PM
  • Re:Gravity modulation => faster-than-light signali by acgetchell (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @02:44PM
  • I think we're missing something very important... by JudgePagLIVR (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:26PM
  • ping -100000000000000000000000 by steak (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:06PM
  • who cares? by samelot (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:48PM
  • This is pathetic by Pinlighter (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:04PM
  • Applications by earthlight (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @08:37PM
  • Re:This is lame. by Effendi13 (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:08PM
  • Re:Time Travel by AjR (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @04:09AM
  • Re:Time Travel by AjR (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @04:11AM
  • Re:Circular File by AjR (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @12:59AM
  • Re:What do _I_ think? by Pxtl (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:52PM
  • Applications by Perdo (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @10:13PM
  • Re:Slower than light? by JCMay (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @05:31AM
  • Early April Fools joke!!! by Zemrec (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:25PM
  • Re:Not quite, Mr. Newton (crash course in relativi by Staypufd (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @07:30AM
  • Re:It's a joke guys ... by danperkins (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @12:19PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by fredrik70 (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @05:26AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by fredrik70 (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @05:31AM
  • Re:Now all we need are the inertial dampners... by Pyotri (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:38PM
  • Re:Yet more oddities (sigh)... by Mad Matt (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:41PM
  • magnetism by n08ody (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:57PM
  • Somebody has been watching Sliders too much! by ccham (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:57PM
  • Re:YAY! by spalik (Score:1) Tuesday March 14 2000, @09:28PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by kerrbear (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @06:13AM
  • Sounds a lot like previous work - Coupled Antenna by whats_UP (Score:1) Wednesday March 15 2000, @10:37AM
  • Doesn't Matter (no pun intended) by GiGabyte02 (Score:1) Friday March 17 2000, @08:31PM
  • Interesting...but needs proving by Wayeh (Score:1) Monday March 20 2000, @12:40PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by LAI (Score:1) Wednesday March 22 2000, @01:45PM
  • There's already a patented wormhole generator... by jeremyf (Score:1) Saturday March 25 2000, @01:42PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Bill Currie (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:31PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Bill Currie (Score:2) Wednesday March 15 2000, @02:41PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Bill Currie (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:46PM
  • Re:inet relevance by phil reed (Score:2) Wednesday March 15 2000, @02:54AM
  • Re:The man responsible by Danse (Score:2) Wednesday March 15 2000, @12:22PM
  • Re:This is lame. by sjames (Score:2) Friday March 17 2000, @03:39AM
  • This is the billiard ball example by hawk (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:29PM
  • OT:New Tenses by nstrug (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @07:51PM
  • Ender's Game, anyone? by Hrunting (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:24PM
  • Regarding prior art... by Michael K. Johnson (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:12PM
  • Great.. I'm all for it by drix (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @09:42PM
  • Slasdot itself has caused time to go backward ! by Taco Cowboy (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:44PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Accipiter (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:03PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by Accipiter (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:18PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? Huh? by Accipiter (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:35PM
  • quantum mechanics... by Barbarian (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @09:58PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? Huh? by ralphclark (Score:2) Wednesday March 15 2000, @03:02PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by ralphclark (Score:2) Wednesday March 15 2000, @04:28PM
  • Re:OT:New Tenses by ralphclark (Score:2) Wednesday March 15 2000, @04:47PM
  • Any volunteers? by Serf (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:23PM
  • Re:YAY! by SnatMandu (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:01PM
  • misinformation by rangek (Score:2) Friday March 24 2000, @03:54PM
  • This is lame. by Mr. Piccolo (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:02PM
  • Re:Is it open sourced? by Mr. Piccolo (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:07PM
  • Re:Is it open sourced? by Mr. Piccolo (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:10PM
  • But wait, there's more! by obobo (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:37PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by mindstrm (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @08:25PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by mindstrm (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @08:34PM
  • NO big deal! by mindstrm (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @08:41PM
  • Re: Backwards in time?? by rm -rf /etc/* (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:40PM
  • Circular File by Xenu (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:01PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by barawn (Score:2) Wednesday March 15 2000, @04:23AM
  • Re:I'm not surprised by GregWebb (Score:2) Thursday March 16 2000, @02:32AM
  • The"IPv4 AlternateAdressingScheme" author explains by gsfprez (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @07:18PM
  • At least they know a few things by Cef (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:00PM
  • Re:Is it open sourced? by spectecjr (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:46PM
  • Re:Wormhole? (Post Stories - HOWTO) by Faw (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @04:07PM
  • Re:Circular File by Mr. Slippery (Score:2) Wednesday March 15 2000, @10:04AM
  • Patent approved :-) by Tackhead (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:05PM
  • What's wrong with wackyness? by Ungrounded Lightning (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @06:54PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by alcubierre (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:32PM
  • Why this patent was applied for by wowbagger (Score:2) Wednesday March 15 2000, @03:49AM
  • Re:There's more by Inoshiro (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @06:43PM
  • Re:What's also disturbing... by Duxup (Score:2) Wednesday March 15 2000, @01:44AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by The Famous Druid (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:14PM
  • Re:Ender's Game, anyone? by JamesSharman (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:45PM
  • Ha! This is obviously a fraud... by Dirtside (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:06PM
  • We should be glad they patented this NOW ... by P_Simm (Score:2) Wednesday March 15 2000, @07:46AM
  • Re:Now all we need are the inertial dampners... by cperciva (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:09PM
  • It Doesn't have to work by DoninIN (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:04PM
  • FTL methods by cybergremlin (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:34PM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? by gauron23 (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:34PM
  • Re:Wormhole physics by balbuzaro (Score:2) Wednesday March 15 2000, @07:53AM
  • Re:Backwards in time?? (Rigid Pole to the Sun) by Ace905 (Score:2) Tuesday March 14 2000, @09:05PM
  • Re:Wormhole physics by MiniChaz (Score:2) Wednesday March 15 2000, @01:46AM
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:29PM (#1202583)
    Hmm ... yes and no. The signal would arrive later than it was sent _in the frame of reference of the sender_ But it could arrive ealier than it was sent in the frame of reverence of someone else who travels relative to the sender (even possibly the receiver) at a relativistic speed (>0.1c). This has to do with the time dilatation caused when moving at great speed. An event that happens BEFORE another one in the view of a not-moving observer can possibly happen AFTER the other in the view of a moving observer. As to not violate casuality both the relative speed of the two observers and any connection between the two events is not allowed to be faster than the speed of light.

    A much better (but quite long) description can be found here [purdue.edu].

    This is all based on the theory of relativity. Quantum physics OTOH allows for faster than light information transport. The most famous example is perhaps the tunnel effect. This effect allows particles to pass through energetical barriers although their energy would not be sufficient to do it according.to conventional physiscs. Tunneling is known for a long time but recently (95 or so) it was discovered that the particles need a shorter time to pass that barrier than light would have taken. It was even calimed that information was sent at about 4 times light speed through a barrier.
    For further information use e.g this [weburbia.com].

    I do not know how this all relates to this invention (theres something suspicious in there, namely the claim that increased plant growth has been observed .... go figure) but its interesting nonetheless
  • by Bill Currie (487) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:35PM (#1202584) Homepage
    I think this backwards though time bit might be a common mistake. The equation for time dialation is sqrt(1-v*v/(c*c)) and when v is greater than c, it becomes sqrt(-x) which is definity not backwards. If anything, it's sideways.

    Now, if you think about it, assuming FTL is possible, what will happen is that when someone is coming to you faster than light, it will appear that they arrive before they left because the light showing their departure arrives after the light showing their arrival.

    If they're departing from your location, they will appear to arraive at their destination x+y years after their departure where x is the distance in lightyears and y is their travel time in years.

    Of course, all the above could be a load of baloney, but still, I don't see how going faster than light would cause you to really go backwards through time.

  • by Uruk (4907) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:33PM (#1202585)
    Maybe it's real, but most likely, it's some losers idea of a practical joke. I must admit though, that for all the screaming about patents that goes on here, it would be kinda cool to have a patent of my own. My patent would be on something that's definately obvious, but harmless to everyone. Something like "Patent on a method for ultra-high-speed avoidance of job-related injuries using three pounds of cool-whip, a pair of scissors, and a copy of the new Stephen King eBook (after I had bitfrobbed it out of whatever pathetic format they're distributing it in) while walking and chewing bubble gum"

    Just you fools wait! You'll all owe me MILLIONS when this type of activity becomes all the rage!

    Alternately, I could preemptively patent the "Natalie Portman/Hot Grits" post, and make TRILLIONS of dollars. (But #2, why make trillions of dollars, when we could make....BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!!) Also possibly in the future is the Jon Katz flame post patent, the "Slashdot sucks since it's become freshmeat" post patent, and the all-important meta-whiner post patent.

    I think that all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary decent people are fed up in this
    country with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not. But I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.
    - Monty Python

    It's an option...
  • What do _I_ think? (Score:3)

    by jimhill (7277) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:55PM (#1202586) Homepage
    I think it's past time for the USPTO to reinstate its requirement that patent applications be submitted with working models.
  • by A nonymous Coward (7548) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:27PM (#1202587)
    Quoting from page 16, column 1, lines 22-28:

    Initial benefits ... include ... and accelerating plant growth exposed to the by-product energy of the RF transmissions.

    and further, same page and column, lines 48-55:

    It has been observed by the inventor and witnesses that accelerated plant growth can occur using the present invention.

    For accelerated plant growth, first, you need to create a hot surface that is more than 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Next, you need a strong magnetic field. Only one device is needed for this function. This allows energy from another dimension to influence plant growth.


    I want to know more!

    How do you protect the plants from the hot surface? Is this the purpose of the magnetic field?

    Does this work on cattle, pigs, and other carnivorous delights?

    Is there any bill to pay to the other dimension whose energy is used?

    The hell with plant growth! Why not simply use the energy to replace oil wells and coal mines and nuclear reactors?

    --
  • by wtpooh (15154) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:14PM (#1202588) Homepage Journal
    Ursula K. LeGuin mentioned the ansible in her 1974 novel "The Dispossessed" - It was a nice surprise to see it there since I had assumed that it was Card's original idea. I don't know if anyone used it before her, though.
  • by EricWright (16803) on Wednesday March 15 2000, @03:34AM (#1202589)
    A method to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves which comprises generating opposing magnetic fields having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the magnetic field

    Consider an electromagnetic wave travelling in a particular direction, say down the positive x axis. The oscillatory magnetic and electric fields comprising these waves oscillate in mutually perpendicular planes, and perpendicular to the direction of propagation. For the sake of argument, let the electric field's plane of oscillation be the +/-y axis, and the magnetic field's plane be the +/-z axis.

    The Poynting vector (roughly E x B, where x indicates the vector cross product) defines the momentum density of the EM wave. In this case, E x B is proportional to EB(y x z [= x] ). Thus, the momentum carried by the EM wave is transmitted down the longitudinal axis of the wave.

    From Newton's second law, F = dp/dt. When the EM wave is incident on a surface, the wave reflects, changing the direction of travel. If the wave is normally incident on a surface, its direction goes from +x to -x, such that the direction of dp is +x, parallel to the longitudinal axis.

    Note from the quoted section of the patent application that this wormhole method of communication requires a plane of maximum force perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic field. There is no plane of maximum force, there is only a direction (vector). A vector (one dimensional object) can lie in an infinite number of planes (two dimensional objects).

    Either this guy has developed a completely new universe in which his physics is drastically different from ours, or he never bothered taking a graduate level E&M course.

    Eric

  • The big problem (Score:3)

    by mindstrm (20013) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @08:31PM (#1202590)
    with this, and of course, I may be misunderstanding, is one of perception.

    Yes, we say that to observe is to modify (and indeed, it is).
    The theory is that until one of the pair is observed, the particles exist in a superposition of states. When we observe one, we 'cause' it to collapse into the appropriate state. This also, as the particles are entangled, causes the other particle to assume it's state.
    This is largely an exercise in abstract thought. THe real issue is that we do not KNOW the state of the other particle in the pair, and by observing it, we screw with the process.

    In short, the only way real information can be transmitted using this method is to also transmit initial state information via a conventional method, which defeats the purpose altogether.
  • by Mike Van Pelt (32582) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:21PM (#1202591)
    If the signal travels faster than light, wouldn't it get received before it was sent??

    A single signal, not necessarily.

    However, if you can send signals faster than light, you can set things up to get a signal before it was sent. This is inherent to the geometry of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms.

    Now, if you can find another mathematical transform which gives the same answers as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald in all areas where it has been tested, but avoids the possibility of time travel, you might have something. But this theory has been very thorougly tested to a lot of decimal places over a very wide range. As near as we can tell, if you can send a message (or anything else) somewhere faster than light could get there, you can arrange a causality violation.
  • by Weezul (52464) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:17PM (#1202592) Homepage
    No, it's not a missconception and the FTL implies time travel arguement has nothing to do with the way things ``appear.'' Actaully, almost nothing from realitivity talks about the way things appear. Realitivity talks about the way things ARE based on a well calibrated measurment grid, i.e. taking into account seperation. This means the core of the theory is not interested in how long it takes for light to get to your eye. Generally, solving the problem of "how do things appear" (taking into account how long it takes light to get to your eye) is a MUCH harder problem.. that the general public knows almost nothing about.

    Anyway, It's pretty easy to show that FTL implies time travel.. just consider what happens when you use your FLT from an accelerated referance frame. The light cone of the accelerated referance frame is rotated on it's side, so the FTL travel points backwards from the original referance frame. It's not hard to fill in the details from this picture.

    Also, every physics person I have ever talked to about this says it is true. I think there is even a Hawking quote about "We have not seen any visitors from the future, so there is probable no way to go FTL."
  • by speek (53416) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:44PM (#1202593)
    I could be wrong, but I believe the Ansible is a standard sci-fi concept for ftl communications, and did not originate from Orson Card. I don't remember who first came up with it (maybe Ursula LeGuin?), but it's been used many times since.

    But then again, I could be wrong.
  • by signe (64498) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:42PM (#1202594) Homepage
    Does this remind anyone else of the Ansible (sp?) in Ender's Game? It still maintains the limit on travel that is set by light speed, but removes the limit on communications. Maybe this is just another example of life imitating art.

    ...imitating life. If I remember correctly, the "ansible" is an sci-fi extension of a real quantum theory (how close it approximates reality, I don't know). It even came up in a previous Slashdot discussion [slashdot.org].

    Basically, the theory goes that if you have atom with two electrons in the same quantum state except for spin, and you know the spin of one of them and then change it, the spin of the other electron is changed instantly, regardless of distance. However, I think this interaction occurs at the speed of light, and not instantly. It's just that we can't tell the difference between the two because there's no way (presently) to separate the two particles by very much distance.

    -Todd
    ---
  • Nonsense (Score:3)

    by gorgonite (79857) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:14PM (#1202595)
    You can deform spacetime, at least in principle, but not using toys like antennae and such. see This little nasa page [nasa.gov]
  • by LoRez (107779) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:01PM (#1202596)
    causality violation? Ha, I get it:
    Universe.stderr: causality violation, core dumped!

    Let's see god read that one and debug! ;-)

    ------
  • Re:Circular File (Score:3)

    by trintragula (119106) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:06PM (#1202597) Homepage

    Hopefully, the patent office will treat this like they treat applications for patents on perpetual motion machines

    You are more correct than you think. I shall try to explain why...

    In making his special theory of relativity, Einstein first stated the following two assumptions:

    • The speed of light is constant and will be measured to have the same value by any observer.
    • The laws of physics will be the same for any observer

    Everything else you have ever heard about relativity is a logical consequence of these two statements. This is the beauty of the theory.

    It is the second one which we are interested in here. If this device did work, energy would be transported from one point to another faster than light would take to do the same thing. Now, the observer who activates the machine will see some energy disappear into his machine, then some time later, see it reappear at the other end.

    An observer at the other end of the machine, will first see some energy appear at his end of the machine, then later see some disappear from the other end. This would violate the law of conservation of energy for the second observer and is thus a no-no.

  • I'm not surprised (Score:3)

    by Signail11 (123143) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:17PM (#1202598)
    It [should] go without saying that this patent is pseudoscientific babble masquarading as a real invention that some patent examiner bought. Unfortunately, this is not very surprising considering what other, ahem, odd patents have been approved.

    For example, numerous perpetual motion machines have been patented, as well as unlimited energy supplies and other such nonsense. These are really great for laughs on a rainy day when your own project is on the fritz. Of course, they never work, but this never seems to stop the USPTO from issuing the patents anyway. The laws of physics (and the gross violation thereof) don't seem to bother the patent office.
  • by cretog8 (144589) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @05:11PM (#1202599)
    Perhaps it's time to question the person responsible for the current state of the USPTO, and the preposterous patents we see granted. People are quite willing to hold Janet Reno personally accountable for the failings of the Justice Dept., why not this guy?

    Q. Todd Dickinson [uspto.gov] is the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. He's only been on the job for 4 months, so we can't blame him personally for many past failings, but he's the one to address about making it stop. According to his biography, "Under Dickinson's leadership, the PTO is implementing the most sweeping reform in patent law in a half-century and its restructuring into a performance-based organization."

    Since IANAL, I can't make much sense of Dickinson v. Zurko [techlaw.com], but it might give some insight on Disckinson's attitudes. It vaguely makes it look like he tried pretty vigorously to strenghten the legal force of PTO decisions that something was prior art and couldn't be patented. It may or may not also strengthen decisions that something is patentable. He says he's trying to hire many more people familiar with software, and make more resources available for recognizing prior art.

    There's several of his speeches [uspto.gov] available at the PTO site.

    Dickinson did praise the late Judge Giles Sutherland Rich, who wrote the opinion in the State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group Inc. [callaw.com] case that explicitly made it acceptable to patent mathematical algorithms and business models.

    It would be great if the slashdot masters could arrange an Ask Slashdot with this guy.

  • by Pyotri (161802) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:12PM (#1202600)
    Imagine the scene in the USPTO. An overworked, underpaid trainee patent clerk has just finished scrutinising the design for a revolutionary mousetrap, and then he spots this on top of his in-pile. He looks at it, doublechecks, and looks at it again. Five minutes later, his supervisor returns from the coffee machine, and finds his young charge laid prostrate, and still suffering from fits of helpless giggles. "Let me guess." he asks, as he sips his capuccino. "Perpetual motion? Time travel? Lead into gold?" "No, even better," the young man manages to gasp between convulsions of hilarity, "a hyperwave transmitter." After calming his trainee down, the supervisor explains to him how to process such applications. "We shall accept this patent." "What? But it's crazy! It can't work! It's just a bunch of..." "I know that! So what's the harm in accepting it?" "What?" "Well think about it. Do you imagine how much trouble this applicant could cause if we reject this one? So where's the harm in humouring him? Just stamp it approved, file it away, and we have one happy lunatic and one patent that can't be challenged because it never made sense in the first place. That way, everybody's happy." "But won't that just encourage him?" "And that's the beauty of it! The thought of seeing another one of these is what gets me out of bed in the morning. And just consider how quick and easy it is to deal with. The more of these you get, the better your productivity bonus." "Ahh, I see. I think I'm going to like this job after all!" "Don't count on it."
  • by PG13 (3024) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:54PM (#1202601)
    It would cause SOMEONE to observe the signal traveling bacwards in time. Because we have to transform the times for any inertial observer someone in a rocket ship going very fast (but still below the speed of light) will see the transmission of the signal occur after it is recieved.

    It is even worse as the reception of the light will be in his past light cone at some time (a signal from the reception can reach him) and the transmission will be in his future light cone (he can send a beam of light to the transmission point before the transmission occurs). Therefore in his reference frame (just as valid as any other) he can see the result of the transmission and then tell them they shouldn't send.

    For the record unless this is talking about speed of light in water or anything else other then the signal speed in vaccu it is a load of BS.
  • YAY! (Score:4)

    by Accipiter (8228) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:54PM (#1202602)
    A method to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves which comprises generating opposing magnetic fields having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating a heat source along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating an accelerator parallel to and in close proximity to the heat source, thereby creating an input and output port; and generating a communications signal into the input and output port, thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than light.

    WooHoo! Now we can contact Voyager!

    (P.S.: If that's the abstract, I don't want to see the specifics. heh)

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:54PM (#1202603) Journal
    They stopped requiring working models for everything but devices to violate the conservation of energy after they filled up a bunch of warehouses with working models of everything under the sun. (A lot of it was big farm implements.)

    Many of the Smithsonian exhibits are old working models from patent applications.

    Interestingly: A very efficient still (using counter-current heat exchangers and creating near-vacuum by being 30ish feet tall at approximately atmospheric pressure at the bottom) was initially rejected for being a perpetual motion machine (for which they have rather high standards, in addition to the working-model requirement. B-) ) But the inventer was able to convince them to grant the patent after he showed them that you still had to input the heat of solution plus some heat for various losses.
  • There's more (Score:4)

    by Duxup (72775) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:28PM (#1202604) Homepage
    IBM has all kinds of neat patents.

    Some a bit more disturbing than others. [ibm.com]
  • by Hrunting (2191) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @01:59PM (#1202605) Homepage
    I'm sorry. First, Jeff Bezos and Amazon patent One-Click Shopping and now this!? Are they completely nuts?! Do they realize that wormhole generation technology has been alive and well on the Internet for the past umpteen years? I mean, come on, if they're giving out patents for this stuff, I'd better reserve my spot in line for Air!

    It is common knowledge that transmitting and receiving electromagnetic waves which comprise opposing magnetic fields having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating a heat source along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating an accelerator parallel to and in close proximity to the heat source, thereby creating an input and output port; and generating a communications signal into the input and output port, thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than light is the easiest way to generate a wormhole. Other more difficult methods include being an alien species in control of vast amounts of subspace energy and doing something weird with the warp core.

    If this patent goes through, it will mean the death of the Internet e-commerce for sure. Companies will have to stop using wormhole shipping techniques and revert to slower, more earthbound methods like UPS and Airborne Express. Everyone should write the USPTO right now before this thing gets approved and make sure that the system isn't abused once more and ensuring that future generations will have unlimited access to wormhole generating technology.

    NOTE: This post not for the humor (or humour) impaired.
  • This isn't NEWS... (Score:5)

    by Gothland (34482) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @02:17PM (#1202606) Homepage
    I submitted it three weeks from now. Come ON!
  • Wormhole physics (Score:5)

    by acgetchell (143901) on Tuesday March 14 2000, @03:25PM (#1202607) Homepage
    First, an excellent technical reference (that I'm using in this discussion) is Matt Visser's book
    • Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking

    In general, to create a wormhole one must manipulate the general metric, which is a tensor that describes spacetime (for example, the relatively flat Minkowski metric takes on the form diag(-1,1,1,1) where diag refers to a diagonal matrix). Most "constructed" metrics that produce a wormhole solution have pathological flaws. For example, a Schwartzchild wormhole necessarily occludes the throat with a black hole, which tends to kill off passersby. The Kerr metric solution requires a several solar mass black hole formed into a ring and spun at relativistic angular velocities: how we might accomplish this feat of metric engineering anytime soon is troublesome.

    The two most plausible ways of doing so is a Morris-Thorne-Wheeler wormhole, which simply requires exotic matter and violation of ANEC (Averaged Null-Energy Condition), and the Alcubierre spacewarp.

    "Exotic" matter is simply matter with negative energy density. All matter and antimatter known has positive mass, and so there's only one way that we know of to get it: the Casimir effect. Briefly, the Casimir effect comes about due to vacuum fluctuations. Even the purest ideal vacuum is not truly empty, but has countless particle-antiparticle pairs appearing and disappearing within the time limits set by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The continued existence of these virtual particles has a noticeable effect, and is possibly a source of Einstein's Cosmological constant. At any rate, by setting up a parallel plate capacitor, one can reduce the likelihood of the virtual particles appearing, and thereby generate a negative energy density.

    Unfortunately, it would take a spherical capacitor the size of the Earth separated by an angstrom (10 E-10 meters) to create a 10 meter or so wormhole using the Casimir effect.

    Robert Forward nicely sidesteps this issue by postulating "negative matter" in his novel "Timemaster". As he explained it to me, "Why not?".

    Alcubierre's metric contracts spacetime in front of the "ship" and expands it behind. It also requires exotic matter and violating the weak, strong, and dominant energy conditions. Lastly, Pfenning and Ford (1997 Classical Quantum Gravity 14 1743) show that this configuration is rather implausible, and Hiscock (1997 Class. Quant. Grav 14 L188) shows that a backreaction (warp drag) or tuning of the warp field may be required for it to maintain the Alcubierre metric, a difficult proposition given that past and future event horizons are causally disconnected.

    In sum, there's really a renaissance occuring in General Relativity, and these issues are discussed in the professional literature. Like everyone else, I'd have to see a publication in the technical literature to consider seriously the claims made in this patent.

    Now, with this in mind, after reading the abstract this patent seems to be nonsensical. Examining the claims:

    Generating opposing magnetic fields each having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the respective magnetic field;

    The Lorentz force is given by Il x B, which means that the magnetic force is due to a current, and in general, circulates about the current flow. Due to the cross product, the resultant geometry is not planar. Since we have not discovered any magnetic monopoles, magnetic induction in general forms loops from one pole to another.

    generating heat from a heat source along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic field;

    Unless the heat source is a thin wire, it is difficult to imagine an axial heat source. Heat conduction tends to be uniform, and while I'm not a material scientist, it is difficult for me to think of a material that has non-isotropic heat conduction (ie different depending on direction -- a composite material with fibers might do the trick).

    generating an accelerator parallel to and in close proximity to the heat source, thereby creating an electromagnetic injection point; and generating a communication signal into the electromagnetic injection point, thereby sending and receiving the communication signal at a speed faster than a known speed of light.

    What is exactly meant by "an accelerator"? Why does this magically add up to FTL?

    Also note one of the other claims:

    It has been observed by the inventor and witnesses that accelerated plant growth can occur using the present invention.
    For accelerated plant growth, first, you need to create a hot surface that is more than 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Next, you need a strong magnetic field. Only one device is needed for this function. This allows energy from another dimension to influence plant growth.

    Again, there seems to be no basis in which to make this claim. A wormhole would certain create a characteristic signature, even leaving causality problems aside. --Adam

  • 122 replies beneath your current threshold.
(1) | 2 | 3 | 4