Strange

OK. We will ignore the fact that I worked on patents for a couple of decades. Yes, things like "inventive step" and "obvious" are subjective and it can be quite hard to persuade the examiner that a patent really is inventive. You are correct, I am not that familiar with Swedish patent law. But I assume that if you were to develop a product based on this idea (as you stated in your first post) you would want to patent it in, potentially, the largest markets (e.g. the USA). You are, obviously, correct that it is not possible to patent an idea or (in most countries) a piece of software. However, it is possible in principle to patent the sort of thing you talked about in your first post: a cloud-connected valve and acoustic-flow measurement system. You even posted a photo of a prototype device. That falls squarely in the domain of things that are patentable.

Again, your source contradicts this: There are two effects, the smaller one could be explained by GEM. The other cannot. It is up to you provide the detailed, quantitative analysis to support your claims. Until you do that, there is nothing much to discuss.

There might be objections that it is not inventive enough (one of the criteria) but a good patent agent should be able to get round that.

That is a pretty cool idea. It is shame you have now lost the chance patent it!

I thought you were: But it sounds like you are just here to be disruptive.

All of them? You are suggesting an odd view of science. A more meaningful question would be, what experiment would have falsified the model of spacetime in GR (answer: any of them producing a different result from GR). Maybe you should be asking what experiment would falsify GEM. I can't answer that because I am not familiar with it. But I note that your source says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism So, if we had started off down that route, sooner or later an experiment or observation would have shown it to be wrong. (We are still hoping for such a result for GR but, unfortunately, it hasn't happened yet.) These are all vague, hand wavy, qualitative claims of similarity. If you want to defend GEM as an alternative to GR, then you need to show, in mathematical detail, that it produces the same match to observations as GR (or better). If you want to attempt that, then you would also need to do it in the Speculations forum.

Why do you think this? It was based on contemporary physics (known deficiencies in Newtonian gravity, special relativity*, etc). He worked with others to develop the theory. It might have been another 5 years or another 50, but someone would have worked it out sooner or later. (There were already geometrical interpretations of Maxwell's equations, for example.) * Special relativity didn't require Einstein, either. All the component parts were there, the most significant thing he did was to pull them together with an underlying mechanism. Again, someone else would have done that sooner or later. Until it was found to be inadequate. Then it would have been replaced. (See also the Rutherford and Bohr models of the atom. Or science in general.)

That is the observer effect, not the HUP.

Do you need to explain how the illusionist does it? You could leave it as a mystery even for the reader (you could keep teasing them: "The trick works by ..." At that moment the telephone rings.) Maybe this is a clue. How about threads (or a net) of fibres hung from a wire high above the river. They are soaked in something flammable and when lit, there will be a wall of fire. Or hang a thin sheet of transparent plastic which can't be seen in the dark, then project really bright (laser?) coloured lights onto it (a variation on "Pepper's Ghost" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper's_ghost) Maybe a local magic club might be a better bet than a university professor: scientists are notoriously gullible when it comes to magic tricks 🙂

On the subject of Einstein being wrong:

Your first warning was in GREEN. You may find when trying to develop and market a new product that you are often challenged on the technical, marketing, financial and other aspects of your business. Especially by people you need to help you (e.g. investors). You might want to think about how you would react to such challenges when they happen. Would potential investors be impressed by an angry tirade in response to a comment on your plans? Would they be more or less willing to invest if you make false statements? Maybe you need to find a forum more suited to your temperament and goals. There is generally little discussion of product or business development here. And we do require people to obey the rules, especially the one about being civil.

Maybe you should look up the definition of "rules" as well. You agreed to several when you joined. Now you are complaining about them.

Wow. It's like a 14 year old has just discovered philosophy. What next? Trees falling in empty forests? The universe created last Thursday? One hand clapping? Maybe in a few years you can graduate to The Ship of Theseus / Trigger's Broom.

So, effectively, you are using "portable" to denote low cost, ease of use, simple installation, etc. Well, good luck. It is not always easy developing and marketing a new product but it should be valuable experience.

Even for you, that is a pretty bold position.

Or, presumably, at any speed faster than light?

OK. I hadn't looked in that much detail. I was going to suggest that your selling point could be very low cost, to open up a wider range of applications. Portable, though? Where do you see that being used? (Not being negative, genuinely curious!)

The word "actually" is a bit of a stretch there. He has some way-out ideas, not accepted by most neurologists (or even most physicists). I would be very surprised if that has any relationship to how the brain "actually" works. I doubt even Penrose would go along with that.

https://patents.justia.com/patent/20150082911 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050011278 There were hundreds more results, some probably duplicates, so the concept is not novel. You would need to think of something to make a product like this competitive (and avoid infringing any existing patents).

The rails could push each other apart, and the two rails can push on the projectile. But I'm not sure how or if that applies to a single wire. Where is the box? It doesn't appear in your diagram. If the wires move apart then you may not be able to support the arc (depending on voltage, available current, humidity and many other factors) and so the circuit would break. The arc will take the shortest path, which is a straight line. This seems inconsistent with your "forced downward". You need to calculate the strength of the magnetic field generated by the wires and see if it is enough to displace the path of the electrons. (I am guessing not, based purely on the size of the coils and magnets in old CRT tubes) The current in the wires would remain in the wires, it can't be "forced" anywhere. Do you mean the wires would be deflected by the magnetic field generated by the spark? Any such effect would be tiny. But it depends on how the wires fixed, their stiffness, the current involved, etc. I think this is all too vague (and confusing; you keep introducing new things when answering questions) to make any useful conclusions. You need to be more specific about the voltage, current, length of the wire and their mechanical properties, air pressure, temperature, relative humidity,

What gives the red wire a positive charge? It doesn't appear to be connect anything. Or is it supposed to be connected to the green (power source?) through the insulator? Where are you expecting the spark to occur? Between the points you have labelled "+" and "-"? And why do you want a spark at all? Why not just complete the circuit with a wire? I don't think the magnetic field caused by the current will affect the wire carrying that current. But it would affect another, nearby, current-carrying wire. This is still pretty crude, but is this why you are trying to represent?

You can model empty spacetime. Obviously there is no such thing in our universe. So you are saying that the muon knows when to decay by looking at the lab clock? GR only works if space and time are continuous. But then again, we know that GR probably needs to be modified at quantum scales. Good article on the possibilities here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/06/14/are-space-and-time-quantized-maybe-not-says-science/ I guess this (like so many questions) depends how you define "gravity". If you mean something causing masses to move under the effects of other masses, then obviously that does't happen in empty spacetime. But if you use gravity to mean the curvature of spacetime that would cause such movement if mass were present, then it does exist. (This is explored theoretically using "test masses" that have effectively zero mass.)

That incoherent nonsense is not evidence for anything.

I can't see how it has anything to do with quantisation of time, even if it were support for the idea that change is required (which it isn't). Again, what evidence do you have for the quantisation of time or space?

It doesn't say that at all. You are describing the observer effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)