Tailoring elements demonstrating spacetime transformation?

If time came to a complete stop at c, energy would cease to propagate. Special Relativity is incomplete with respect to time not associated with the propagation of energy or matter. It needs to be recognized, this is a different variable that is a substrate for propagation time and for which relativity offers no model or insight.

Entanglement time has been clocked at a minimum 10K times the speed of light. In this domain, relativity ceases to operate as it does at speeds at or below c. No energy or matter propagates by means of entanglement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Time is an expansion of space it's just the descriptive form of the gravitational field. It's actully the same as space just another feature of the gravitational field.

Because the gravitational field and time are related even if time equaled 0 the gravational field should still exibit most of the same qualities.

Energy propagation cannot be observed beyond c, but it's a reality it happens. This is the upper limit of observation in our observable universe using our instruments. It's the focal point, 0 but at those points existing beyond spacetime has similar behaviour with points inside. This is why quantum fluctuations even happen.

Relativity is incomplete in the sense it's parameters was not designed to adress FTL propagation. To accurately describe this without violating relativity, you cannot claim energy propagates beyond speed c.

The gravitational field is infinite and has evolved into space-time think about it light has seven different frequencies but they all move at c, don't you see? Entanglement is not a violation of relativity if the gravitational field existed before space time and is the same as space. In the beginning the gravitational field only moved in 2 dimensions at speed c, and observers inside space-time cannot observe this, to them it would look like a singularity that's not moving at all. Once time matter and mass pop into existence the gravitational field is no longer observed to be static.

The gravitational field is filling itself using spacetime.
Every form of the gravitational field is a new form of evolution. Space, time, matter, light , life, current human awareness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not impressed.

• 8,945,435 Compositions of matter: system II
• 8,679,373 Composition of matter tailoring: system I
• 8,137,593 Composition of matter tailoring: system I
• 7,704,403 Composition of matter tailoring: system I
• 7,655,160 Compositions of matter: system II
• 7,491,348 Composition of matter tailoring: system I
• 7,252,793 Composition of matter tailoring: system I
• 7,238,297 Composition of matter tailoring: system I
• 6,572,792 Composition of matter tailoring: system 1

http://www.chem.wayne.edu/schlegel/Pub_folder/183.pdf
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp962535d

It's just a guy who likes heating and cooling metal and likes pretentious company names.

And he's been around the block before:
http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/ajhoff/teaching_cases/MMT (A) Case.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1997/0421/5908048a.html
http://www.fool.com/DTrouble/1997/DTrouble971119.htm
http://pdf.wri.org/bell/tn_1-56973-431-3_teaching_note_english.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since you have thoroughly researched his methods does the results correspondent with with the claims in the op?

 

Of course not.

 

This material is not however, aluminium.

It is a compound of aluminium with oxygen and nitrogen. As such, it is hardly remarkable that it is transparent.

The only element I can think of, offhand, that exists in both transparent and at least quasi-metallic forms is carbon.

 

Maybe because there is no such thing - notwithstanding your conflating aluminium with compounds thereof - as per your #20. Might as well claim ALON (TM) is a transparent form of oxygen, or nitrogen. Aluminium is not transparent to light. Neither is copper. There are no allotropes of aluminium or copper:
http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/13/aluminium
http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/29/copper
Hence no possibility of 'transparent' forms.
Iron also has no allotropes: http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/26/iron
So '4 times harder than diamond'? Err---no. And I note who has been giving you 'I likes' to such stuff. That first linked-to Wikipedia article reads like a PR blurb sheet. It is hugely unlikely that a brittle ceramic would be any good as bullet-proof windshield etc., and the admission it is only 85% as hard as alumina betrays a subsequent claim made there. Sadly an example of a Wikipedia infomercial masquerading as fact sheet.
[no allotropes above means none at STP - not at some enormous pressures and/or temperatures like at earth's core]

 

I could be wrong, but from my reading I was getting the impression that manipulating carbon nanotubes was one of the materials that is the subject of this invention.

A lot of hype, to be sure, but not as much hype as making diamonds out of chunky peanut butter in a microwave oven, which is the subject of a lot of semi-entertaining humor on youtube.

 

I provided a video link with ballistics tests of this material compared with bulletproof glass. It probably isn't the best material in existence for manufacture of bulletproof vests, but it's actually pretty good.

 

Einstein and Gödel took long walks together while at Princeton discussing math and physics. I think of them like Gould's revived parable of the Fox and the Hedgehog (not Gould's best work, but the parable is a good one to reference here).

A Fox has strategies for solving a lot of different kinds of problems with skill and cunning. The Hedghog only knows one strategy (curl up in a ball of spiny pikes and wait until the predator has gone away), but it is a pretty good one.

Relativity has many strategies for solving riddles involving matter, energy, and the speed of light including dozens of paradoxes that on the face of it are intractable by any other means of reasoning. But as relativity is a mathematical theory; Gödel's singular idea of its incompleteness eventually comes into play.

Relativity as a system of mathematical reasoning is incomplete. For sure. Entanglement ("spooky" action at a distance) is the Achilles heel. And so it must be explained by another theory, or else it will be forever outside of the system of reasoning known as Relativity in physics (or math). Those who understand Relativity well enough to apply it will know what I am talking about. I am providing you the benefit of one of those long discussions during their walks at Princeton that none of us will ever hear.

Gödel was often criticized for recycling his incompleteness theorem again and again throughout his mathematical career. Hedgehog indeed. Good show, Kurt! There are those who published hundreds of peer reviewed papers who never said as much with even one of them.

The best science resembles magic to the uninitiated. One of Feynman's most famous lectures was on the possibilities of nanomaterials as I recall. I don't believe he underestimated the possibilities. Keep an open mind. There is good reason to do so, and the hedgehog's parable is only one.

 

I have no issue with ALON (TM) - as one constituent of a laminated composite - providing better performance than the same using glass instead of ALON (TM). At likely a massive monetary cost penalty. The raw claim I objected to was - an implied great bullet-proof material on its own. That was a side issue to your initial bit about 'transparent form of aluminum' (which matter I see exchemist beat me to). Do you acknowledge that claim in #15 is at the very least technically wrong?

 

Just every bloody thing in the world is allegedly the subject of this "invention". As I said earlier it is so broad and vague in scope as to be almost meaningless. And, as I also said earlier, I see no examples of interesting or novel materials that have actually been produced by this supposed technique. What does "manipulating" carbon nanotubes mean, for example? Manipulating how? To what end? And what examples are given?

So far as I can see it is all hand-waving with no real examples. I suspect the Patent Office examiner will chuck it out when it comes to examination stage.

 

It is more than just technically wrong, aluminum is a metal, making a ceramic with aluminum as one constituent is a completely different material with different properties. It would be the same as saying I have a form of aluminum that has a melting point of 2000 C instead of the normal 660 C, since alumina (Al2O3) melts at 2000 C. Or it would be like saying I have a form of liquid oxygen that you can drink it is called water.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Right. Was just trying to be a bit gentle - ease the process so to speak.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yep, you don't seem like a jaded curmudgeon like myself...

 

You can also manufacture a mesh (like a nanotechnology fabricated screen mesh) out of any metal that is in some sense "transparent". That would in general not be a patentable idea all by itself.

ALON is really nothing more than compound made of aluminum and the major constituents of air (oxygen and nitrogen), bonded to the aluminum in particular proportions. Many minerals containing trace amounts of aluminum are transparent, and some are harder, but few have the combination of desirable properties of ALON including ease of fabricating parts from it.

I acknowledge that offering an example of an aluminum based material that can be rendered transparent is not technically the same thing as Chris Nagel claims to have done with copper, yes.

Also, I see nothing in his patent application that is particularly novel in terms of manipulating materials as he claims, but the application may be withholding certain other information (details about the particular stimulation and materials used) that may be needed to make a complete assessment of those claims. For awarding such a patent, a capable patent examiner would need to compare the invention with all prior art. This is something your garden variety participant in these forums does not necessarily have access to, nor the time or resources to do an exhaustive international legal search of similar patents.

 

You are absolutely right.

Patent examiners run into this problem a lot. Patent applications need to be broad enough to cover minor alterations to an invention that improve it in trivial respects, but narrow enough to emphasize that the idea is unique.

"Changing the geometry of spacetime" is, yes, bending over backwards a few times to emphasize a unique quality that is not apparent from the accompanying diagrams, or if it is actually a new method, promoting the fact in an eccentric and unconventional manner.

See what an engaging occupation being a patent examiner can be? I've never been one, although I know a few people who were. For every great invention that advances the state of the art, there are several dozen patent applications like this one.

If academics were run more like a patent office, there'd be a lot fewer papers to sift through to find one that presented novel ideas or research about their respective subjects, and fewer PhDs awarded for doctoral dissertations that were 99.999% "boilerplate" derived from previously successful papers appearing in in their bibliographies. Wouldn't that be great?

Life is really too short to deal with the torrent of disinformation that seems necessary. For whatever reason, Nagel doesn't seem to want to help very much.

Why would anyone need nickel that "shatters like glass", much less patent a process for producing it? Call it by name: "metal fatigue". Big fat deal.

 

Yes I trained for a couple of years to be a patent agent (patent attorney in US parlance). So I was on the other side of the fence, trying to get the best deal from the Patent Office for the inventors I represented, or alternatively trying to knock out patents - or oppose published applications - that stood in the way of what my clients wanted to do. It is an often interesting and intellectually challenging line of work - no doubt why it appealed to the young Einstein. The snag however is having to master a lot of dry statute and case law on patents, which in the end drove me to choose a different career - in the oil industry.

 

Gödel's incompleteness theorem is about the foundations of mathematics. It has nothing, I repeat, nothing, to do with physics, in particular with relavity, or quantum theory, or the EPR argument that quantum theory is incomplete.

That these two incompleteness claims have nothing to do with each other is quite obvious for everybody who has some basic asquaintance with above. Nonetheless, it happens quite often that some laymen, who have heard about above in popular literature or so, think they are somehow connected. This leads to a quite plausible general heuristic rule: Whoever connect Gödel's incompleteness theorem with physics is a crank.

I do not plan to explain the differences or otherwise support this heuristic rule with arguments, I simply tell you that it exists. This is, of course, also a suggestion to you: Think twice before connecting openly, in a public forum, Gödel's incompleteness theorem with physics, because this will kill your reputation in the eyes of almost everybody who knows a little bit about it.

 

I imagine you are thinking of something like: https://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/plasmonq/pdfs/old/045.pdf
Interesting stuff but definitely not to be confused with rendering, via some esoteric process, metals optically transparent per se.

Good. Done here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!