Generating a Secondary Gravitational Force Field - US Patent 3,626,605

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter brett812718
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the validity and implications of US Patent #3,626,605, which proposes a method and apparatus for generating a secondary gravitational force field. Participants explore whether the concepts presented in the patent align with current theories in physics or have any experimental support, while also touching on related ideas of artificial gravity and the nature of patents in scientific discourse.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the patent's alignment with current physics theories and experimental observations.
  • Another participant suggests that the patent document itself should provide answers regarding its validity.
  • A different participant expresses skepticism about the patent's claims, referencing a misunderstanding of neutron stars and their properties.
  • Some participants imply that the lack of practical outcomes from the patent suggests its ideas may not be viable.
  • Concerns are raised about the nature of patents, with one participant criticizing the patent office's role in granting patents that may not make sense scientifically.
  • Discussion includes the concept of artificial gravity, noting that while it is not possible to create gravity, structures can be designed to simulate gravitational effects through acceleration.
  • One participant reflects on the physical sensations of gravity and free fall, suggesting a nuanced understanding of how gravity is experienced in different contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some skepticism about the patent's scientific validity and others questioning the nature of patents in general. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the patent's merits or the feasibility of its claims.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the speculative nature of the patent and its lack of practical application, as well as the complexities involved in discussing artificial gravity and its relationship to mass and acceleration.

brett812718
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
I wanted to know if anything written in this pattent is supported by current theories in physics or experimental observations?

US Patent # 3,626,605

Method & Apparatus for Generating a Secondary Gravitational Force Field

Henry W. Wallace


this can be found in the link below


http://www.rexresearch.com/wallace/wallace.htm"


thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The article itself should answer that question.
 
I had to quit reading after a minute or so; it was making my head hurt. (Or maybe that was the vodka.) Either way, I couldn't get through it.
If my understanding of the first couple of paragraphs is correct, then by this guy's reasoning a neutron star, composed of the densest material in existence spinning at incredible speeds, should be weightless. If he wants to try poking one with his finger to see if it moves, he's more than welcome to. I'll hang back and watch from a safe distance.
 
Given the age and the fact that nothing has come of it, I think the answer should be obvious.
 
I must admit that I read for just 2 minutes. But I also scrolled a little bit and found an even more interesting one: changing tha nuclear structure to alter heat transfer properties. The target invention was a head pump.

No comments.
 
Admirable is the "You can patent any old thing that comes into your head" norm. The chaps at the patent office are not supposed to police the worth of a patent, but the phrase "Patent Nonsense" does not arise from nowhere, and perhaps the patent office can refuse some patents on grounds of not making sense in the description. More controversial are the attempts to "own the future" by speculative semantics and predatory legal machinations.

Getting back to artificial gravity - there is none, despite the patents! Just getting a concept for something so obviously a property of mass, yet also so obviously associated with accelerated motion and time, has made some of the best heads hurt for some centuries.

Admittedly not actually "making" gravity, but instead contriving a structure that will continuously accelerate the folk inside toward an axis gives a situation for them indistinguishable from mass caused gravity . There was the movie fantasy space station from the opening scenes of "2001-A Space Oddesy". I was even more impressed by the slowly rotating gigantic ferris wheel feature of the craft from the movie "Mission to Mars" staring Gary Sinise, who must by now be one of the most physics-aware actors in Hollywood.

The price for this type of "artificial" gravity is maybe that momentum transfer from foot-floor friction in moving about requires the wheel rotation occasionally be forcibly corrected. It took me right into my teens before I came to appreciate that I only "feel the force" when I am not doing the free fall. Once I have jumped, it switches off - until I have landed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
596
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
11K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K