Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: US20060073976A1-20060406-D00000.png (54KB, 1890x1330px) Image search:
[Google]
54KB, 1890x1330px
Genuinely curious.
What's a legitimate physics / math refutation to this patent application?
> https://www.google.com/patents/US20060073976
It's pretty cancer to read, I really wish it was a physics paper. It'd be more readable.
The guy apparently worked for Oracle and was a insane drug dude arrested for rape etc
He probably went batshit on LSD
I know people like the "famous" Dr Ronald Mallet are also working on their ideas
Progress is slow.
Any new developments or theory?
>>
maybe the fact that it assumes miniature black holes are off-the-shelf components and the abstact reads like some neckbeard copypasted all "related" links form a wikipedia article
>>
patent troll even lower-tier than copyright troll,
which is sewer-tier
>>
Neither of your statements refute the science though.
>>
File: 1495557772461.jpg (23KB, 478x373px) Image search:
[Google]
23KB, 478x373px
>>9103415
So? What if it's that the science is sufficient but the engineering assumptions are retarded?
>>
>>9103455
They are retarded today, but (if the maths and physics are correct) one day might nit be...
I don't pretend I understand the idea, though.
>>
>>9103466
Well, then maybe the day the assumptions are feasible, the author will be (in)famous-er. Also, he WILL be dead by that time.
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2