To date the presence of Dark Energy, has remained a mystery. This is solved on the basis of fundamental unit of energy, Planck's constant, from which space-time itself, the forces of nature including gravity, and all particle physics can be derived. This is achieved on the on the basis of the speed of light and classical geometry. In the first instance new research points to a definitive answer to the presence of space time and the value of Hubble's constant. Here we invite open access research and discussion to probe the mysteries and very nature of Dark Energy, and the origins of all the aspects of Nature including the laws of thermodynamics.
Dear Preston, the notion of special relativity is part of the solution but not enough to describe and disqualify both the notion of the undeniable missing mass and the expansing mathematical space-metric... so whatever the terminology one would like to use, comes respectively into play the commonly known as dark-matter and dark-energy (It’s not just a made-up story from general relativity, it’s about real observations, therefore it’s science).
Dear Andrew, the notion of dark-gravity (the combination of both so-said dark matter and dark energy) is no more a mystery... run your own test and embrace the facts:
Article DIRECT PROOF TO THE YANG MILLS EXISTENCE AND MASS GAP (THE U...
John Hodge What if it is possible to predict the precise peak temperature of absolute zero.
Andrew Worsley
Absolute zero is by definition 0 K. So, predict what in terms of Kelvin?
John Hodge The minimum temp recorded is not of course 0k it is 15 x 10^-12 K, still not the minimum Universal temp-, but quite close. So we are getting there. But it suggests that dark energy is not at 0 K. That is because dark energy has some energy. What! you say, are the theorists wrong or does dark energy really exist. That is exactly the increase in "universe temperature" that you espouse.
Andrew Worsley,
there is no dark energy as I could explain in my third book. I found serious errors in the original paper (1998) and concluded that dark energy is an illusion. Later reports (2016 .e.g) see no such an effect.
I also concluded that there is no dark matter. People have tried to find it but all have failed. I still see such reports but with negative result.
Dark energy exist as vacuum energy in extradimensional Universe so we can't "see" it. Vacuum energy density has many values depending on number of extradimensions. With an infinite number of extradimension we get the Planck density.
Alaya Kouki,
we live in a three dimensional world and no dark energy as I just have explained.
From the time of Newton gravity was thought to be fundamentally attractive. But Newton did not consider scales above the Solar system. What if gravity is fundamentally repulsive, and only apparently attractive below the scale of galactic superclusters. Then the inertial acceleration of the universe would be identical to (repulsive) gravity, making the equivalence principle -- and general relativity -- a special case. Preprint Particles from Gravity (Jul 24, 2021)
Warren Frisina,
you stated:
"While gravitation is the weakest force it might be the root of the other three."
I suggest you look into my second book where I could show how gravity can give rise to the other forces
All we know is that there are some indications that the rate of the cosmic expansion is accelerating.
That is all.
The rest is theory and conjecture.
Hans Gennow How about a short paragraph summary of "how gravity can give rise to the other forces?"
Warren Frisina,
there is no short way. It is a quantum mechanical process.
Andrew, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on a recent paper suggesting that "unparticles" might be the cause of dark energy. Here is the paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2023/12/047/pdf
Dark energy is a term that is related to the measurement of the red shift of electromagnetic radiation during the evolution of the observable universe in relation to the measurement of the brightness of “standard candles” (e.g. type 1A supernovae). The latter are the emitters of the measured electromagnetic radiation to determine the ratio of the hypothetical expansion of the universe.
If our universe seems to expand its volume during the evolution because theorists cannot find a better explanation for the non-Doppler red shift of the light of distant galaxies, we have to realize that there is a big chance that the expansion of the universe is a misinterpretation. Nevertheless, what underlies the hypothetical Dark energy?
The image above shows a ruler that spans 13,8 billion light years. If the universe expands in a linear way the increasing red shift of the light of distant galaxies will show a related linearity. But that isn’t in line with what is actually measured. Because the non-Doppler red shift seems to increase during the evolution of the universe, suggesting that the universe expands in a slightly accelerated way.
The Standard cosmological model (lambda-CDM model) is partly founded on Einstein’s theory of general relativity: spacetime. However, we can measure the different properties within the volume of the universe and research have proved that the whole universe is tessellated by a limited number of basic quantum fields with distinct basic properties (modern QFT). These basic quantum fields “create” everything we can observe and measure and what is beyond. Moreover, energy and momentum are conserved everywhere in our non-local universe. A conservation that fully corresponds with the dynamical properties of the electromagnetic field.
So the question is what has changed during the evolution of the universe by these basic quantum fields. A spatial modification that caused a non-linear increase of the non-Doppler red shift of the light of far away nearby galaxies.
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has revealed that in the early universe there was more free energy around than nowadays. So I can draw a hypothetical red line in the diagram that represents the decrease of available free energy in vacuum space during the evolution of the universe (free energy density). The only reasonable mechanism is the creation of more and more matter in the universe. Matter is concentrated energy (E = m c2) so it is only possible at the cost of the free energy density in vacuum space.
Besides that, the JWST observations show the existence of large primordial black holes at the “start” of our universe, thus what we have termed “the start of the universe” is nothing more than the start of the emergence of electromagnetic waves by (Hydrogen) atoms in the universe. In line with the polarization of the CMB radiation that can only be caused by the huge gravitational fields of the already existing primordial black holes.
Now there is a problem because the decrease of the density of free energy in vacuum space results in the decrease of the wave length of electromagnetic waves (like e.g. BEC experiments have shown). The consequence is that space – actually the universe – doesn’t expand at all. So do galaxies drift apart from each other in a slightly accelerated way?
There is the Hubble tension too. The cause behind the Hubble tension is the universal scalar field (Higgs field). Because the Higgs field isn’t 100% symmetrical in every direction. Thus the measured non-Doppler red shift of far away galaxies will differ more than the non-Doppler red shift of nearby galaxies. The maximal difference is about 14% between galaxies at the same distant from the Earth. So if we look in the night sky the direction we are looking to determines a variance in non-Doppler redshift.
The left image shows an “open” 3D representation of an imaginary sphere (e.g. radius = 5 billion light years). The right image shows the closed surface area of the sphere. Its surface area is divided in triangles and squares like the left image. Everywhere on the black lines the non-Doppler red shift is equal. But the red shift that is coming from the centres of the squares is more red shifted and from the centres of the triangles is less red shifted. The general effect is that nearby galaxies seem to slightly “accelerate” in relation to far away galaxies because we determine the distance of far away galaxies with the help of their luminosity. So we need a calibration of all the detected light of galaxies to determine if Dark energy exists or it is an effect caused by the asymmetry of the Higgs field.
With kind regards, Sydney
Sydney Ernest Grimm,
I see you have a lot of things to learn.
Dark energy is an illusion as I could explain in my third book. The original paper has severe problems. What do you think about a nova 23Gly away as the claimed? More than the age of the universe.
A recent paper tell us that the LCDM description is wrong.
There are no Higgs. Experiments do not fit with predictions.
The CMB is created by the galaxies when they build up. Atoms that are created give rise to photons that can scatter on free electrons thereby resulting in a 2.7K black body distribution. My fourth book.
The massive objects in the center of the galaxies are created already within an hour of the original "explosion" as a consequence of a quantum mechanical process where the elementary particles are created. My first book.
JWST (as well as Hubble) now report on very young galaxies having an extremly massive core, in line with my predictions, last book. Interesting is that the cores seem to shrink by time along my predictions.
When the galaxies move outwards they will exhibit a standard dopplershift. Their speed is of the order of .98c.
Have you got it?
Dear Hans Gennow
Thank you for all the "exciting" information.
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear Hans,
While I do agree with most of your arguments on this topic, still the notion of dark energy isn't an illusion, it is all about an expansion of the universe at a speed greater than that of light.
Note that beside the violation of causality, travelling at v>c produces diverging physical observables (energy, momentum and so on) violating all the other conservation laws.
John Hodge
Herein the lowest temp.
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-coldest-temperature38-picokelvins.html
John Hodge
Herein the lowest temp
38 pico kelvin
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-coldest-temperature38-picokelvins.html
Einstein's field equation with a positive cosmological constant and a zero energy momentum tensor describes a universe, which exclusively contains dark energy.
This universe has a constant scalar space curvature of 1/R² and a finite volume of 2π²R³.
Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_super_vacuum_Is_the_earth_in_a_vacuum_And_what_is_dark_energy4 ,
- including the link to section 5 “Cosmology” in . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics
- is relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko,
there is no dark energy. As I have shown the original paper has serious probems, what do you say about a nova 23Gly away? Father than the age of the universe. See my third book.
Hans Gennow,
“…there is no dark energy. As I have shown the original paper has serious probems, what do you say about a nova 23Gly away? Father than the age of the universe. See my third book.. ….”
- really that above looks as rather questionable claim [even besides that you don’t tell about what is wrong in some the “original paper”, and what is written in this case in “third book”].
The “dark energy problem” indeed now is rather, if too, questionably defined in mainstream cosmology, since it is based on only 3DXYZ EM experimental images of cosmological objects, while real topology of Matter in its absolute spacetime [that has (at least) [4+4+1]4D metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct) - why? see paper linked in yesterday SS post above; though even this spacetime is for sure only locally, and not for sure in few billions of light years scale] now isn’t known.
Again to say really scientifically about what existed/exists and happened/ happens in Matter in possibly indeed 13.8 billions of years existence after its creation, first of all about what is the “main cosmological principle”, etc., will be possible only after the rational topology model in corresponding spacetime metrics, starting from the metrics above, will be developed.
Nonetheless now the Big Bang model looks as rather rational, first of all in the inflation point, which rather convincingly explains the global uniform matter’s distribution in 3DXYZ Space,
And it looks as rather rational that from experimental data Matter expands with acceleration; while in all that really there is nothing too irrational,
- Matter, as it is well scientifically rationally shown in the SS&VT cosmological Planck scale model [the link in yesterday SS post], with a well non-zero probability was created in the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set by existent in the Set other the Set’s element – really extremely mighty and smart Creator.
So humans can only to develop some models [including the SS&VT model linked above] – how that could be made, etc., basing on reliable physical experimental data.
But the answer to the question – what is the energy, which step by step was spent for creation of observed Matter, including which was spent in practically for sure happened “inflation epoch”, when only the first version of Matter’s ultimate base – the Planck scale [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the Matter’s spacetime above, was created,
[- i.e. when really there was no some unbelievably huge mystic “Big Bang” in some mystic “singular point” of some mystic “spacetime”, which in mainstream cosmology either mystically existed in mystic somewhere before creation, or mystically appeared at creation, where some mystic “quark-gluon plasma”, which for/by some mystic reason/way contained only observable now matter quark-gluons, appeared; and , which [plasma] further flied/ fly apart because of “Big Bang”,
[- really primary matter was created uniformly yet in rather large at least 3DXYZ lattice/space volume, primary matter was rather cold, and didn’t contain antimatter – why and how? – again see the link above];
- is completely outside physics, since experimental physics really has till now no any observations of this energy direct action.
Though, again, the energy that modifies/expanded/expands the FLE practically for sure existed/exists, and for completely unknown now for humans reasons, really acted/acts, though now only some guesses are possible; say, the expansion solves the Matter’s “gravitational paradox”, Baby is still growing till now, etc.
Cheers
The electromagnetic radiation of galaxies is (slightly) gravitationally red-shifted according to a modeling of galactic halo using the field equations. If this gravitational red-shift is not subtracted from the observed red-shift when the speed of the expansion of the Universe id determined, then the speed is overestimated, whereby the excess is larger, the red-shift parameter "z" is smaller (i.e. the age of the observed part of Universe is larger).
In other words, the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe is an artefact caused by considering the sum z_d+z_g (z_d is the Doppler red-shift and z_g is the gravitational red-shift) instead of pure z_d, when one determines the expansion speed.
Until z_g of galaxies and quasars is determined for a large sample of these objects, we do not know, in fact, whether the expansion of the Universe accelerates or not, from a certain epoch. If it does not accelerate, there is no reason to establish the concept of dark energy. It is possible that this concept is only a product of human fantasy.
Sergey Shevchenko,
the original paper is Riess et.al., Astron. J 116, 1009(1998).
If you care to read my third book, Part II, chapter 3.3, you will find all nasty details. What to you say about a nova 23 Gly away, farther than the age of the universe.
The Big Bang is not the right story. Galaxies expand in my story as well. The major difference between the two is that I can explain how the elementary particles were created. Big Bang cannot explain it.
If you're interested in this topic, I encourage you to look at my article on matter/antimatter hadron structure, particularly with regard to its cosmological implications. Under this matter/antimatter hadron model, the acceleration of neutrinos (which have mass) generated within stars, to nearly the speed of light, causes the expansion of spacetime under Einstein's General Theory. This phenomenon explains the expansion of the Universe, and the increasing rate of expansion of the Universe.
Hans Gennow,
“……What to you say about a nova 23 Gly away, farther than the age of the universe….”
- that looks as rather questionable estimation of distance to “nova 23 Gly”, really now physics hasn’t corresponding instruments that would measure this.
“….The Big Bang is not the right story. Galaxies expand in my story as well. The major difference between the two is that I can explain how the elementary particles were created. Big Bang cannot explain it….”
The standard cosmological Big Bang model indeed has numerous problems, some of which are pointed in the SS post above; first of all – it is really a set of fantastic stories about fantastic “point-like unbelievable fluctuations” of some mystic “spacetime point”, fantastic “scalar fields”, mostly – some mystic “inflaton” and “Higgs” fields, that for/by some mystic reasons/ways existed in some mystic somewhere before the creation, and that resulted also for/by some mystic reasons/ways in appearance of the “quark-gluon plasma” in appeared again for/by mystic reasons and ways “spacetime” – which again is placed in some mystic somewhere, the plasma again for/by some mystic reasons and ways contained only matter and no antimatter, etc.
However what is in the cosmological model on the “after quark-gluon plasma” epoch [including the “inflation hypothesis”, though”] looks much more reasonable, since is based on indeed numerous cosmological experimental observations,
- however even in this case, as that is pointed in the SS post above, really scientific cosmological model can be developed only after the Matter’s topology model in the Matter’s absolute spacetime that has (at least) [4+4+1]4D metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct) will be developed,
- while in the cosmology now it is postulated that Matter’s spacetime is the pseudo Riemannian spacetime with metrics (ict,X,Y,Z); where, the time dimension, besides that is too strangely mathematically imaginary, really is fundamentally the specific “fourth” – besides XYZ – of course real mathematically space cτ-dimension, and everything in Matter exists and moves utmost universally in this 4D space.
Etc., that in cosmology the XYZ space inside galaxies don’t expand despite that intergalactic space expands, indeed looks as rather questionable, but that can be really scientifically studied again only after the topology will be known.
Though, since I was educated in experimental nuclear physics for me it would be more interesting explanation “how the elementary particles were created”.
Cheers
I’ve got a question for all participants... can you access all replies? I’m just seeing four last answers and I wonder why? Am I missing something?
Whatever, I have bad news for those questioning the notion of dark energy : “the conservation laws are incorrect for any dynamically orbital system, consequently that notion is inevitable no-matter what”.
Sergey Shevchenko,
you asked : “how the elementary particles were created”.
The answere you can find in my first book.
Olivier Hakizimana "the conservation laws are incorrect for any dynamically orbital system"
What problem is in the conservation laws?
(Check the numbers between the arrows below the "add" button)
That “…you asked : “how the elementary particles were created”. The answere you can find in my first book. ….”
- looks as rather vague proposition. Say, the how creation of particles happens problem – including , of course evidently obligatorily necessary answer to question “what is a particle?” at all, which also fundamentally cannot be answered in mainstream physics, since in the mainstream all necessary in this case fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,
- and “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,
- and so the mainstream has only some purely empirical theories that describe experimental data without any real understanding – why the observed particles and their interactions are as they are,
- can be, and well rigorously scientifically rationally is, solved only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, where the fundamental phenomena/notions above are rigorously scientifically defined, and in this case it is enough to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics .
So more see the linked paper, but a brief introductory explanation is possible on a RG thread:
- particles – as everything that exists and happens in Matter - are disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct); FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.
The disturbances are created in the lattice after some the lattice FLE is impacted, with transmission to it, by some non-zero at least 4D space momentum P [bold means 4D vector] in utmost universal Matter’s space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z). The impact causes in the lattice sequential FLE-by-FLE flipping, which, since the flipping cannot propagate in the lattice with 4D speed more than the flipping speed c=lP/tP [really at particles creation c√2, more see the link, but that isn’t essential here].
Some FLE flipping above along a direct 4D line can be caused by an practically infinitesimal P impact, if P isn’t infinitesimal, that causes flipping FLE precession and corresponding propagation in the 4D space above of the “FLE-flipping point” along some 4D helix,
- i.e. causes creation of some close-loop algorithm that cyclically runs on FLE “hardware ” with the helix’s frequency ω, having momentum P=mc above,m is inertial mass, the helix radius is λ=λ/P.
That above are introductory notes, what is particles creation, etc., in detail see the linked above paper. Though really there are rather large number of different particles, which are as they are since corresponding P momentums have, besides the 4 universal dimensions above, also some specific combinations of other [g,w,e,s, above] dimensions; more in this case see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 Planck scale informational physical models of Gravity and Electric Forces in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces , and of Nuclear Force in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force/comments
Recent SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ideas_for_Aether_Theory_of_Gravity/2 , pages 1, 2
- and.in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravity_and_Inertia relate to the rather strange discussion that appeared on this page.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko,
it looks like you are afraid to read my books. As I said the firt one explains how particles can be created and how they are constructed. The second book gives a possible way to understand how the different forces comes about.
Too much for you?
Dear Wolfgang Konle,
Thank you for your help, maybe I didn’t pay that much attention... what a novice question... one would exclaim!
Let’s assume I was not aware... which is true by the way.
In that regard, the most problem with conservation laws is the awareness on their necessary fallibility leading to the existence of all those counterintuitive concepts (black/white holes, dark matter/energy ... you can read and test my uploaded drafts on this same platform to make your own conclusions).
Hans Gennow,
“…Sergey Shevchenko,
it looks like you are afraid to read my books. As I said the firt one explains how particles can be created and how they are constructed. The second book gives a possible way to understand how the different forces comes about…”
- sorry, but in physics there exist seems dozens of thousands books about particles and particles creation, but I have no any desire to read that, there are many other things in physics that are much more interesting.
In my post above I asked you to clarify introductorily how in your books the problem of particles creation [for what is necessary, of course, before to clarify – what is a particle] is solved,
- and wrote , as an example, such introductory clarification of both these physical problems in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model.
The whole clarification is not in a book, but in not too long [linked in the SS post above] paper, where that occupies a few pages, while further in the paper well more than a dozen of other fundamental physical problems are solved or well essentially clarified, including basing on the explanation what is “a particle”,
- about of every of which in mainstream physics also there exist dozens, if hundreds, of thousands of published “peer-reviewed ” papers, books, etc.
But you, instead of to write some introductory clarification of your approach, write some strange claims.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko,
as I have indicated, it is a quantum mechanical process. It cannot be explained in a few words.
It is at least much shorter than your long essays.
Hans Gennow,
- that
“…as I have indicated, it is a quantum mechanical process. It cannot be explained in a few words.
It is at least much shorter than your long essays.….”
- looks as rather evidently self-contradictory strange claim, but in the SS posts above the thread question is already essentially commented/clarified, including the problem what is particle and how particles are created, so now posting about, say, other explanations of this [really absence of explanations] looks as superfluous.
So now I can only note, that texts in really scientific posts on RG must be essentially enough substantiated, so, if some really fundamental point is discussed, the posts cannot be short.
So the really professional scientists, including physicists, write as a rule no more 1 post/day, while for readers, who really want to understand what is in such posts, it is necessary to spend for that not short time.
In other cases nothing besides really senseless bazaar “short posts” chatting can be. Regrettably last few years most of threads are flooded by a few very vivid bazaar posters. Let hope that in this thread will not happen.
Cheers
Dear Wolfgang Konle,
Run your own test and your doubts will be erased in a second... nothing magical, just the consequences of the coin paradox.
Olivier Hakizimana "Run your own test and your doubts will be erased in a second"
What test?
"just the consequences of the coin paradox"
What are the consequences of the coin paradox?
Dear Wolfgang Konle,
Article DIRECT PROOF TO THE YANG MILLS EXISTENCE AND MASS GAP (THE U...
Olivier Hakizimana "7. CONCLUSION 7.1. The Introduction to the theory of everything"
In your article you are describing some mechanical machine, and then you come to a conclusion.
But this conclusion is an introduction to a new theory, which does not have much in common with your mechanical machine.
Dear Wolfgang Konle,
Note: We are talking about a mechanical machine based on two paradoxes of nature involving motion and orbital geometry... as a result, it clarifies the notion of dark-gravity, it doesn't care about conservation laws and it ends up reinforcing the fundamental notion of energy-information-equivalence.
By the way, let's assume you're right by saying:
''7. CONCLUSION 7.1. The Introduction to the theory of everything"
In your article you are describing some mechanical machine, and then you come to a conclusion.But this conclusion is an introduction to a new theory, which does not have much in common with your mechanical machine.''
In that regard;
*Please, name a single (not even two) example of a thing which is not in motion within a given orbit?
*Please, name a single (not even two) example of a thing which is not just information (aka energy according to the said falsified article).
*Please, name a single (not even two) example of a thing that the conclusion does not have in common with the said mechanical machine.
Olivier Hakizimana "...it clarifies the notion of dark-gravity, it doesn't care about conservation laws and it ends up reinforcing the fundamental notion of energy-information-equivalence."
Sorry, but with that claim that somehow conservation laws can be cancelled by an energy-information equivalence, your ideas seem to be irrelevant.
Up to now conservation laws cannot be cancelled by whatever means.
Dear Wolfgang Konle ,
Note: you didn’t prove your last claims about the article conclusion ... yet we are talking about already tested ideas with enough empirical material evidences and not just ideas.
By the way, Let’s assume my ideas are irrelevant according to you.
Then, prove it please...haha.
“Up to now conservation laws cannot be cancelled by whatever means”
So sorry, that’s (100% ) a wrong claim ... since any dynamically orbital system does violate such laws, prove me wrong scientifically if you can (meanwhile, one should be honest and admit he doesn’t know instead of making same old claims).
Olivier Hakizimana
Theories which imply a violation of conservation laws are irrelevant by default. There is no specific proof necessary.
Dear Wolfgang Konle
“Theories which imply a violation of conservation laws are irrelevant by default. There is no specific proof necessary”.
It’s beyond any doubt, you surely expect me to add “AMEN“ (it sounds exactly like some illogically-religious anti-scientific arguments)... and I surely expect you to reedit your answer for the sake of science and your own reputation.
Science had/is/will never be in a static mode, scientific discoveries and breakthroughs are made perpetually... otherwise there would be no point of having a platform like RESEARCHGATE... neither you and I would be here.
And at the end of the day, if you’re not willing to prove your claims to disapprove mine ( either you have no valuable arguments or have other reasons), we can still agree to disagree... hahahaha... was a pleasure to talk to you.
Olivier Hakizimana
Patent offices everywhere in the world are authorized to reject perpetuum mobile patent claims without individual check.
Dear Wolfgang Konle
“Patent offices everywhere in the world are authorized to reject perpetuum mobile patent claims without individual check.”
I know what you’re talking about and let me be much more precise :“in some countries, unless the said individual check has been done, they can’t even allow you to file for such a patent”.
Hahahaha... that’s one more reason why science is not about your suggested belief.
RUN YOUR OWN TEST AND EMBRACE THE FACTS.
Cheers.