Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

patents.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 97 posts

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#21

Post by dbsmith83 »

dantheman wrote: post #13
ksaj wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of patents for things that are not yet known to work, but are plausible. Things that are in study stage often get patents if they are novel enough, to avoid someone else coming in and getting rich off your research before you've even had a chance to pay back your investors (let alone yourself). It's not a patent troll thing. It's protecting your investment. A lot of money goes into research, and there…

If you don't have a working implementation that is available for sale you're a patent troll.

Creating the infrastructure and business to manufacture the thing to sell takes time. If you created a proof of concept but it wasn't ready for sale you should still patent it so someone doesn't swoop in. Waiting for it to be on sale before patenting it is for the birds.

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#22

Post by nullc »

mokus wrote: post #20
mypalmike wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an invention cannot be "reduced to practice", it is not patentable. My understanding is that reduction to practice means the invention has been actually built by the inventor, or that it is fully disclosed in a patent application such that a reasonably skilled person could construct the invention. If an invention hinges on some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skill…

If it can’t be built, how does the patent harm anyone except the one who wasted their money to get the patent? There will never be a licensee or infringement to sue over.

Later, someone invents the stuff to make a related idea work.

The patent holder here sues. His patent is technically invalid, because it couldn't be reduced to practice.

Patents are presumed valid.

So the burden of disproving it rests on the real inventor. They'll be advised to accept a settlement with the troll.

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#23

Post by mcswell »

_gt8f wrote: post #12
hindsightbias wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard Worlds most advanced Navy systems and crews and all I get are fuzzy pics and descriptions.

Might be worth something to watch part of the Lex Fridman interview with one of the pilots, David Fravor. The entire podcast is four hours long and goes over his career and experiences, I'd argue establishes him as a competent naval officer and pilot. The timecode is when he describes the actual event- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E&t=4264s In the interview he also describes the record keeping process an…

I think it was Richard Feynman who said the easiest person in the world to fool is yourself. I have no doubt this pilot is a good officer and pilot, but that doesn't mean he saw what he thinks he saw.

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#24

Post by mcswell »

miles wrote: post #17
lwansbrough wrote: post #15

This whole thing has a very boring, very likely answer described in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8&t=1300s Essentially, there are a few different perspective/camera quirks coming together in these videos which can (apparently) trick even well trained pilots.

> there are a few different perspective/camera quirks coming together in these videos which can (apparently) trick even well trained pilots. How does that explain the radar readings? "The tic tac – so-called because of its rounded shape and white colour – was caught on video as the US Navy attempted to identify a series of objects spotted on radar flying off America’s west coast in November 2004. ... The sighting cam…

"deeply experienced radar operators": what does that mean? They're not looking at raw radar signals, like some WWII operator with an O-scope. They're looking at a computer-generated signal. And lots can go wrong between the radar signal and the computer screen.

Likewise, "the most advanced flight technology ever created" has absolutely nothing to do with it. They could have been in a hot air balloon and seen the same thing (which I suspect was an illusion).

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#25

Post by ihunter2839 »

Curious as to what others here think about the idea that the Tic Tac UFO could be some sort of high energy particle beam being controlled from the ground?

My mom unfortunately passed from cancer, but she was able to get proton beam therapy for a tumor that would have been inaccessible with traditional radiation. This, as I understand it, is because a proton beam sheds the majority of it's energy at the very end of it's flight, allowing internal tissues to be targeted more directly.

I wonder - what would it look like if you made a proton beam and pointed it to the sky? Could you create a glowing area, much like the Tic Tac, that could be used to throw off enemy radar? I am legitimately curious, as my physics background is so so at best.

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#26

Post by stevenalowe »

philip142au wrote: post #10

It’s rubbish, whatever propulsion method you have you still need to push the air out of the way to move the thing forwards which takes the same energy using imaginary gravitational waves or a jet engine. No magic is going to make the air get out of the way any faster

it's intended for use in space, phil.

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#27

Post by ubertoop »

ksaj wrote: post #5

This relies on the existence of the graviton, which at this point is is not actually known to exist. Some would even argue that there is no reason for it to exist. There are a few competing theories of gravity that don't jive at all with what's discussed in pseudo-factual language in the patent. It doesn't help that his only source cited seems to be his own, albeit peer reviewed, paper. I hope that paper at least cit…

The patent is really only half of the story here.

The bigger question is why does the US Navy own this patents? And, how does this relate to the pill shaped UFO that navy pilots verified having seen over the last decade performing antigravity maneuvers?

On December 30th 2020 the United States Senate had requested for the Pentagon for an explanation of this UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon). The Senate said the Pentagon had 180 days (about half a year) to give an explanation. This explanation would be out around June/July of 2021. [1]

The patent for the "High frequency gravitational wave generator" is essentially a pill shape design, exactly like the Navy Pilots describe.

The other patent "Craft using an inertial mass reduction device" appears to be the kind of tech you would need to avoid getting squished like a grape in hyper-G accelerations.

The big questions here are

1) Why does the Navy own these patents

2) Do they have anything to do with the pill shaped UFOs the navy has reported seeing

3) Are they even real science?

[1] https://www.wilx.com/2020/12/30/the-pentagon-has-180-days-to...

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#28

Post by ubertoop »

mcswell wrote: post #23
_gt8f wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might be worth something to watch part of the Lex Fridman interview with one of the pilots, David Fravor. The entire podcast is four hours long and goes over his career and experiences, I'd argue establishes him as a competent naval officer and pilot. The timecode is when he describes the actual event- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E&t=4264s In the interview he also describes the record keeping process an…

I think it was Richard Feynman who said the easiest person in the world to fool is yourself. I have no doubt this pilot is a good officer and pilot, but that doesn't mean he saw what he thinks he saw.

He is not the only highly qualified navy pilot who saw these crafts. [1]

And the 2004 event is not the only time the US Navy has seen these crafts. There was another event in 2014. [2]

[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/tic-tac-ufo-video-q-...

[2} https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings...

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#29

Post by bori5 »

ihunter2839 wrote: post #25

Curious as to what others here think about the idea that the Tic Tac UFO could be some sort of high energy particle beam being controlled from the ground? My mom unfortunately passed from cancer, but she was able to get proton beam therapy for a tumor that would have been inaccessible with traditional radiation. This, as I understand it, is because a proton beam sheds the majority of it's energy at the very end of it…

All those strange lights in the desert around that Area 51 place ...https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strang...

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#30

Post by smolder »

mokus wrote: post #20
mypalmike wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an invention cannot be "reduced to practice", it is not patentable. My understanding is that reduction to practice means the invention has been actually built by the inventor, or that it is fully disclosed in a patent application such that a reasonably skilled person could construct the invention. If an invention hinges on some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skill…

If it can’t be built, how does the patent harm anyone except the one who wasted their money to get the patent? There will never be a licensee or infringement to sue over.

It only wastes various people's time to patent something that can't be built. (The authors, regulators, and on-lookers.) However to speculatively patent something that later turns out to be viable could mean that some other party may have been prevented from taking the idea beyond speculation, since they can't capitalize on it, right? It hurts the incentive to really innovate when the patent system is clogged with speculative junk, nevermind the obvious patents. Speculating by itself isn't innovating and shouldn't be rewarded as such.
Post reply on HN