Monday, September 05, 2016

Dark Matter WIMPS Experimentally Non-Existent: Back to Gravity?

No posited WIMPS of "dark matter" have thus far been found experimentally, according to an article at the Scientific American.

See the article at Scientific American.

Well, we have said all along that "Dark Matter" can only be Gravity. The problem is its measurement. The Standard Model of modern Physics excludes gravity - i.e., in our view, the Standard Model may well explain a theoretical mathematical construct, but it represents a world that does not exist.

Friday, February 12, 2016

LIGO Detects Gravitational Waves, Confirming Einstein’s Theory

Ligo, ligo! The Baltics knew this all along, did we not ;-)

As reported in an article by Dennis Overbye at the New York Times, Einstein's theory of the existence of gravitational waves has now been confirmed by LSC, LIGO Scientific Collaboration, in Gravitational Waves Detected, Confirming Einstein’s Theory - The New York Times.

Do we have ESP? Apparently, given our last posting on this blog in November, 100 Years of Relativity Theory - Is the Universe its Own Singularity? - What is the Speed of Gravity at Work and is Gravity the same as Dark Matter?

The gravitational waves themselves are said to travel at the speed of light, but how fast is the actual speed of gravity itself? Instantaneous?

Here is the offical press release by LIGO:

"Gravitational Waves Detected 100 Years After Einstein's Prediction

News Release • February 11, 2016

Visit The Detection Portal

See also: LIGO Hanford Press Release
LIGO Opens New Window on the Universe with Observation of Gravitational Waves from Colliding Black Holes
WASHINGTON, DC/Cascina, Italy
For the first time, scientists have observed ripples in the fabric of spacetime called gravitational waves, arriving at the earth from a cataclysmic event in the distant universe. This confirms a major prediction of Albert Einstein’s 1915 general theory of relativity and opens an unprecedented new window onto the cosmos.
Gravitational waves carry information about their dramatic origins and about the nature of gravity that cannot otherwise be obtained. Physicists have concluded that the detected gravitational waves were produced during the final fraction of a second of the merger of two black holes to produce a single, more massive spinning black hole. This collision of two black holes had been predicted but never observed.
The gravitational waves were detected on September 14, 2015 at 5:51 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (09:51 UTC) by both of the twin Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors, located in Livingston, Louisiana, and Hanford, Washington, USA. The LIGO Observatories are funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and were conceived, built, and are operated by Caltech and MIT. The discovery, accepted for publication in the journal Physical Review Letters, was made by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (which includes the GEO Collaboration and the Australian Consortium for Interferometric Gravitational Astronomy) and the Virgo Collaboration using data from the two LIGO detectors.
Based on the observed signals, LIGO scientists estimate that the black holes for this event were about 29 and 36 times the mass of the sun, and the event took place 1.3 billion years ago. About 3 times the mass of the sun was converted into gravitational waves in a fraction of a second—with a peak power output about 50 times that of the whole visible universe. By looking at the time of arrival of the signals—the detector in Livingston recorded the event 7 milliseconds before the detector in Hanford—scientists can say that the source was located in the Southern Hemisphere.
According to general relativity, a pair of black holes orbiting around each other lose energy through the emission of gravitational waves, causing them to gradually approach each other over billions of years, and then much more quickly in the final minutes. During the final fraction of a second, the two black holes collide into each other at nearly one-half the speed of light and form a single more massive black hole, converting a portion of the combined black holes’ mass to energy, according to Einstein’s formula E=mc2. This energy is emitted as a final strong burst of gravitational waves. It is these gravitational waves that LIGO has observed.
The existence of gravitational waves was first demonstrated in the 1970s and 80s by Joseph Taylor, Jr., and colleagues. Taylor and Russell Hulse discovered in 1974 a binary system composed of a pulsar in orbit around a neutron star. Taylor and Joel M. Weisberg in 1982 found that the orbit of the pulsar was slowly shrinking over time because of the release of energy in the form of gravitational waves. For discovering the pulsar and showing that it would make possible this particular gravitational wave measurement, Hulse and Taylor were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993.
The new LIGO discovery is the first observation of gravitational waves themselves, made by measuring the tiny disturbances the waves make to space and time as they pass through the earth.
“Our observation of gravitational waves accomplishes an ambitious goal set out over 5 decades ago to directly detect this elusive phenomenon and better understand the universe, and, fittingly, fulfills Einstein’s legacy on the 100th anniversary of his general theory of relativity,” says Caltech’s David H. Reitze, executive director of the LIGO Laboratory.
The discovery was made possible by the enhanced capabilities of Advanced LIGO, a major upgrade that increases the sensitivity of the instruments compared to the first generation LIGO detectors, enabling a large increase in the volume of the universe probed—and the discovery of gravitational waves during its first observation run. The US National Science Foundation leads in financial support for Advanced LIGO. Funding organizations in Germany (Max Planck Society), the U.K. (Science and Technology Facilities Council, STFC) and Australia (Australian Research Council) also have made significant commitments to the project. Several of the key technologies that made Advanced LIGO so much more sensitive have been developed and tested by the German UK GEO collaboration. Significant computer resources have been contributed by the AEI Hannover Atlas Cluster, the LIGO Laboratory, Syracuse University, and the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee. Several universities designed, built, and tested key components for Advanced LIGO: The Australian National University, the University of Adelaide, the University of Florida, Stanford University, Columbia University of the City of New York, and Louisiana State University.
“In 1992, when LIGO’s initial funding was approved, it represented the biggest investment the NSF had ever made,” says France Córdova, NSF director. “It was a big risk. But the National Science Foundation is the agency that takes these kinds of risks. We support fundamental science and engineering at a point in the road to discovery where that path is anything but clear. We fund trailblazers. It’s why the U.S. continues to be a global leader in advancing knowledge.”
LIGO research is carried out by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC), a group of more than 1000 scientists from universities around the United States and in 14 other countries. More than 90 universities and research institutes in the LSC develop detector technology and analyze data; approximately 250 students are strong contributing members of the collaboration. The LSC detector network includes the LIGO interferometers and the GEO600 detector. The GEO team includes scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute, AEI), Leibniz Universität Hannover, along with partners at the University of Glasgow, Cardiff University, the University of Birmingham, other universities in the United Kingdom, and the University of the Balearic Islands in Spain.
“This detection is the beginning of a new era: The field of gravitational wave astronomy is now a reality,” says Gabriela González, LSC spokesperson and professor of physics and astronomy at Louisiana State University.
LIGO was originally proposed as a means of detecting these gravitational waves in the 1980s by Rainer Weiss, professor of physics, emeritus, from MIT; Kip Thorne, Caltech’s Richard P. Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics, emeritus; and Ronald Drever, professor of physics, emeritus, also from Caltech.
“The description of this observation is beautifully described in the Einstein theory of general relativity formulated 100 years ago and comprises the first test of the theory in strong gravitation. It would have been wonderful to watch Einstein’s face had we been able to tell him,” says Weiss.

“With this discovery, we humans are embarking on a marvelous new quest: the quest to explore the warped side of the universe—objects and phenomena that are made from warped spacetime. Colliding black holes and gravitational waves are our first beautiful examples,” says Thorne.
Virgo research is carried out by the Virgo Collaboration, consisting of more than 250 physicists and engineers belonging to 19 different European research groups: 6 from Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) in France; 8 from the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) in Italy; 2 in The Netherlands with Nikhef; the Wigner RCP in Hungary; the POLGRAW group in Poland; and the European Gravitational Observatory (EGO), the laboratory hosting the Virgo detector near Pisa in Italy.
Fulvio Ricci, Virgo Spokesperson, notes that, “This is a significant milestone for physics, but more importantly merely the start of many new and exciting astrophysical discoveries to come with LIGO and Virgo.”

Bruce Allen, managing director of the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute), adds, “Einstein thought gravitational waves were too weak to detect, and didn’t believe in black holes. But I don’t think he’d have minded being wrong!”
“The Advanced LIGO detectors are a tour de force of science and technology, made possible by a truly exceptional international team of technicians, engineers, and scientists,” says David Shoemaker of MIT, the project leader for Advanced LIGO. “We are very proud that we finished this NSF-funded project on time and on budget.”
At each observatory, the two-and-a-half-mile (4-km) long L-shaped LIGO interferometer uses laser light split into two beams that travel back and forth down the arms (four-foot diameter tubes kept under a near-perfect vacuum). The beams are used to monitor the distance between mirrors precisely positioned at the ends of the arms. According to Einstein’s theory, the distance between the mirrors will change by an infinitesimal amount when a gravitational wave passes by the detector. A change in the lengths of the arms smaller than one-ten-thousandth the diameter of a proton (10-19 meter) can be detected.
“To make this fantastic milestone possible took a global collaboration of scientists—laser and suspension technology developed for our GEO600 detector was used to help make Advanced LIGO the most sophisticated gravitational wave detector ever created,” says Sheila Rowan, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Glasgow.

Independent and widely separated observatories are necessary to determine the direction of the event causing the gravitational waves, and also to verify that the signals come from space and are not from some other local phenomenon.
Toward this end, the LIGO Laboratory is working closely with scientists in India at the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, the Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology, and the Institute for Plasma to establish a third Advanced LIGO detector on the Indian subcontinent. Awaiting approval by the government of India, it could be operational early in the next decade. The additional detector will greatly improve the ability of the global detector network to localize gravitational-wave sources.
“Hopefully this first observation will accelerate the construction of a global network of detectors to enable accurate source location in the era of multi-messenger astronomy,” says David McClelland, professor of physics and director of the Centre for Gravitational Physics at the Australian National University.
Additional video and image assets can be found here:
Kathy Svitil
Director of News and Content Strategy
626-676-7628 (cell)

Kimberly Allen
Director of Media Relations
Deputy Director, MIT News Office
617-253-2702 (office)
617-852-6094 (cell)

Ivy Kupec
Media Officer
703-292-8796 (Office)
703-225-8216 (Cell)

Fulvio Ricci
Roma +39 06 49914261 (Office)
Cascina +39 050 752 345 (Office)
+39 348 3187354 (Cell)

Susanne Milde
Phone +49 331 583 93 55
Mobile: +49 172 3931349

UK Science and Technology Facilities Council
Terry O’Connor
+44 1793 442006
+44 77 68 00 61 84 (Cell)

Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics Hannover
Benjamin Knispel
Press Officer
+49 511 762 19104

Read the Press Release in

Bengali | Catalan | Chinese | French | Gujarati | Hebrew | Hindi | Hungarian | Korean | Marathi | Oriya | Portugese | Russian | Spanish | Swedish | Thai

LIGO Caltech
MC 100-36
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA 91125

Information: (626) 395-2129 

MIT NW22-295
185 Albany Street
Cambridge, MA 02139

Information: (617) 253-4824"

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

100 Years of Relativity Theory - Is the Universe its Own Singularity? - What is the Speed of Gravity at Work and is Gravity the same as Dark Matter?

A Century Ago, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity Changed Everything is the title of an article by Dennis Overbye at the New York Times in celebration of one hundred years of relativity theory.

Our take on relativity theory 100 years later, especially in view of the postulated Higgs Field, which reminds of the "fudge" of Einstein's cosmological constant, is that theoretical physics consists of "measurements" and formulas, and special "constants" in those formulas to cover up the unknowns.

To us, the primary questions in comprehending the universe then are:
  • what are we measuring?
  • what are our measurement rulers?
Ultimately, the universe we describe by sheer observation and the shorthand of mathematical notation is limited by our measurement stick, a limit which thus far consists of light itself. If anything traveled faster than light, how could one measure it? in the dark.

Accordingly, however, we have the famous equation E=mc2 where c is the velocity of light squared. Now that is FAST. But that defines energy per se.

We think that the key force in the universe is gravity, i.e. the force by which matter is attracted or repelled, which was Newton's main realm of inquiry.

We ask:
  • what is the velocity viz. speed of gravity (is it a constant?),
    or, put differently, and more to the point,
  • at what distance does gravity stop working "instantaneously"?
We postulate that the answer to the identity of so-called "dark matter" that is currently said to permeate the universe is none other than gravity.

Energy is defined by the equation E=mc2 where m is "mass" so that c2 must include everything else, including "dark matter".

The Higgs so-called "standard model" equations leave out gravity (!), and replace it with the so-called "Higgs field", a quantum mechanics (and Nobel Prize-winning) slight-of-hand running along the lines of: "Hey, guys. We know how the universe works. We just have to leave out gravity." LOL. On the other hand, when dealing with particles of small mass at infinitesimally short distances, gravity may be a tough thing to measure, but not zero.

We think that the Higgs Field is nothing other than gravity as the primal attracting and repelling force of the universe, which we think is its own singularity in the universe and thus impossible to measure directly. Only if an object is attracted or repelled can it have mass, given to it by gravity.

Quite obviously to us, gravity permeates everything and moves so fast it covers the known universe instantaneously in terms of "possible" measurement.

See in this context the discussion at Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?
where it is noted that gravity must be assumed to work instantaneously, rather than travel at the speed of light, or the equations on the movement of bodies in our own Solar System fail.

Is the actual velocity of gravity then possibly the same as c2 (the speed of light squared) in Einstein's equation (that is about 35 billion miles per second)? Or is the force of gravity a changing constant measured at a given distance?

We refer here in this context to a discussion of "gravity waves" at where "measurable effects of gravity" are perhaps confused with gravity itself.

It might be true that measurable "gravity waves", like "light waves" may have a base velocity of "simple c", the speed of light, because we can not measure beyond that speed. How could we?

"Gravity waves" are merely the "effects" of gravity and not the same as gravity itself, much like the ripples viz. waves of water from a boat traveling on a river are not the speed of the boat nor that of the water current.

If the universe is its own singularity and gravity its primal force, then the Higgs Field in our view can only be "gravity" and everything else can only be "relative" to that.

Hat tip to CaryGEE.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

"Higgs Boson" Scientists Win Nobel Prize in Physics

We are a bit late on this, but James Morgan at BBC News has the story at Higgs boson scientists win Nobel prize in physics, where the following explanation is given for what a Higgs boson is in the context of the "mass" of particles:
"Scientists' best theory for why different things have mass is the "Higgs field" - where mass can be seen as a measure of the resistance to movement. The "Higgs field" is shown here as a room of physicists chatting among themselves.

A well-known scientist walks into the room and causes a bit of a stir - attracting admirers with each step and interacting strongly with them - signing autographs and stopping to chat.

As she becomes surrounded by admiring fans, she finds it harder to move across the room - in this analogy, she acquires mass due to the "field" of fans, with each fan acting like a single Higgs boson.

If a less popular scientist enters the room, only a small crowd gathers, with no-one clamouring for attention. He finds it easier to move across the room - by analogy, his interaction with the bosons is lower, and so he has a lower mass."
So that's the new standard model of the universe, allegedly, in modern theoretical physics, without gravity of course, which turns out to be a bother.

If gravity were added, we suspect the floor under the scientists in the above model would collapse at some point of idolizing boson accumulation and then what would we have?

The Guardian wrote more recently in The Higgs boson does a new trick (probably):
"In the Standard Model of physics, the fundamental building blocks of nature are quarks (which live inside hadrons) and leptons (such as the electron, and its heavier siblings, the muon and the tau). These building blocks interact with each other via fundamental forces carried by bosons - the photon carries electromagnetism, the W and Z bosons carry the weak nuclear force, and the gluon carries the strong force.

All those particles (except the photon and the gluon, which are massless) acquire their mass by interacting with the Higgs boson, the discovery of which was announced last year on the fourth of July."
We always wonder where those "fundamental forces" that are taken as givens come from, or where the boson gets its "interactive" power, but this does not appear to bother the physicists. The main thing is that the current math formulas work and they get enough "bumps" in the hadron colliders.

Somehow, we think these epicyclic-type theoretical models do not yet really explain the "real" universe. Give it another few thousand years, at least.

The Universe Viewed as a Hologram, i.e. a Projection

Ron Cowen and Nature Magazine
have the story at the Scientific American
in The Universe Really Is a Hologram, According to New Simulations.

See the Holographic Principle at the Wikipedia.

A holograph is a "projection".


The universe, by definition,
is as we see it,
and we can see it
only by the means
we use
to measure it.

Can the mystery be solved in that way?

Or is our knowledge always limited to
and by
the methods of measurement we use?

Wednesday, September 05, 2012

Higgs Boson Quest Enters New Phase: We Remain Skeptical

Quest for Higgs boson enters new phase

University of Chicago (2012, September 4).
ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 5, 2012.

We remain skeptical of the existence of the Higgs boson or field,
unless that field be gravity.

A theory that does not account for gravity leaves out the strongest force in the universe and the idea that allegedly massless particles with a life span of next to nothing make up the foundation of our universe is quaint, but hardly believable, to put it bluntly.

Then there is allegedly an endless field of something which can not be nothing but which is not identifiable that allegedly gives massless particles mass, and so on. Alice in Wonderland physics.

To us that sounds like physicists in the kitchen measuring not what they know.

Albert Einstein Patents and Invention

Einstein worked at the Swiss Patent Office as a patent clerk before making his mark on the world in physics.

The quote we feature below tells us a lot about how Einstein viewed inventors, patent applications and prior art.


The Albert Einstein Archives
PBS NOVA - Einstein the Nobody

Albert Einstein on Creativity linked from "Borrowing Brilliance"

 Jenson: Albert Einstein Quotes - The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. 

Utility Patents and Design Patents 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office, pursuant to U.S. federal laws and decisions of the courts, grants utility and design patents, defined by the USPTO at its website as follows:
"A utility patent may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, compositions of matter, or any new useful improvement thereof. A design patent may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture."
Essentially, an invention viz. discovery can thus be patented for its FORM (design, the way it looks and feels) and/or FUNCTION (what it does), given the legal limitations on "prior art" and "obviousness" found further below.

Pro-patent forces argue that "anything under the Sun that is made by man" can be patented, but that rose-colored rainbow standard meets inter alia the Biblically recorded reality barrier that "there is nothing new under the Sun":
"What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
      there is nothing new under the sun" - Ecclesiastes 1:9 NIV Bible

Patent terminology: Utility and Design, Function and Form

Place of
Patent Parameter Patent
At the

Utility Design

In Arts &
  Function Form
What it
How it Looks and Feels

What are the two basic requirements for patentability?
  • Nondisclosure in Prior Art
  • Not Obvious to a Phosita (a person of ordinary skill in the art)

Place of
Commentary Patent Rule Patent Rule
At the
The "business" of the USPTO is "patents" and who is going to sabotage their own business? The claimed invention can not be disclosed in prior art
The invention can not be
obvious to "a person having ordinary skill in the art", a so-called "phosita"

In the Arts &
No comparable patents exist in art or in architecture and thus these disciplines are more creative Original Avant-garde

The blog The Prior Art referred a couple of years back to a wry comment made in oral arguments by United States Supreme Chief Justice Roberts about the U.S. Circuit Courts (including the Federal Circuit) being obligated to follow U.S. Supreme Court decisions:
"Chief Justice Roberts: Well, they don't have a choice, right? They can't say, I don't like the Supreme Court rule so I'm not going to apply it, other than the Federal Circuit.
(Laughter in the court.)
This rebuke seems to indicate that as Roberts sees it, the Federal Circuit has a habit of blowing off Supreme Court precedent."
The Stanford Technology Law Review has a note on
New Insights on the "Death” of Obviousness:
An Empirical Study of District Court Obviousness Opinions
by Sean M. McEldowney which concludes:
"On the surface, these results seem to support the notion that the Federal Circuit has effectively gutted the standard of obviousness.
[McEldowney then goes on to suggest it may not be so simple.... (but we suspect it IS that simple).] 2006 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 4

The Federal Circuit in the USA is made up primarily of persons with technical degrees. This is a regrettable error in the make-up of this court, because their technology interests make them biased in favor of patents. The Federal Circuit has in fact been all but ignoring recent U.S. Supreme Court dictates, and have been getting reversed regulary for so ignoring them.

Those dictates are, here via the Wikipedia article on KSR v. Teleflex:
"Main article: KSR v. Teleflex

The Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit based on how the lower court defined the capabilities of a PHOSITA. KSR v. Teleflex was decided by a unanimous Supreme Court on April 30, 2007.

Importantly, Justice Kennedy's opinion stated, "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Although the Court's opinion acknowledged other Federal Circuit cases that described a PHOSITA as having "common sense" and who could find motivation "implicitly in the prior art," Kennedy emphasized that his opinion was directed at correcting the "errors of law made by the Court of Appeals in this case" and does not necessarily overturn all other Federal Circuit precedent.

Once the PHOSITA is properly defined, KSR v. Teleflex described how obviousness should be determined:
In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under §103. One of the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims.
which was applied to the facts before the Court with the following:
The proper question to have asked was whether a pedal designer of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in the field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to upgrading Asano with a sensor."
What are the consequences of KSR?

At LawPundit we previously quoted the unanimous decision in KSR in an opinion written by Justice Kennedy:
"Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. To facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.... As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."

Kennedy hammers the new standard home with a clear rejection of the formalistic conceptions attaching to the previous "helpful insights" of the TSM test:

"Helpful insights ... need not become rigid and mandatory formulas; and when it is so applied, the TSM test is incompatible with our precedents. The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against limiting the analysis in this way. In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends. Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retards progress and may, in the case of patents combining previously known elements, deprive prior inventions of their value or utility."
[emphasis added by LawPundit]
What are the consequences of KSR when properly applied in cases like Apple v. Samsung and to Apple's claims to exclusive proprietary patent rights in "bounce-back" software code applications or to various obvious "man-machine interactions" such as human touch controls of digital displays?

It is quite clear that the Supreme Court would throw those Apple patents out without blinking an eye as being no different in principle as a pedal designer of ordinary skill adding a sensor, i.e. a combination of previously known elements.

There is no inventive step in such compositions and no invention worthy of patent protection. The law can not permit a situation in which obvious developments in normal course of the state of the art become proprietary exclusive rights of greedy monopolistic companies who are just combining various features of prior art. However, that is a wisdom that the judges on the present Federal Circuit -- uniquely RESPONSIBLE for patent appeals -- are having difficulty understanding.

Place of
KSR Standard
United States Supreme Court
Advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation are obvious A phosita of ordinary skill has common sense, ordinary creativity and is not an automoton

Conclusion, Quo Vadis?

Maybe legislators in reforming patent law and judges in handling patent cases should heed the words of Henry Ford :

"I invented nothing new. I simply combined the inventions of others into a car. Had I worked fifty or ten or even five years before, I would have failed."

— Henry Ford

Modern smartphones or PC tablets or similar electronic gadgets are no different, being combinations of thousands of inventions and ideas of others to which no one should be able to claim any kind of proprietary exclusivity.

In fact, modern electronic devices trace their origins back to ancient writing shapes and surfaces as well as to the carving, wedging or stamping of iconic symbols into wood, stone, clay, or other earths or materials.

Today these data surfaces are called electronic displays and icons, but in fact, as far as invention is concerned, they are the same.

Transistors and microprocessors have enabled the micromanufacture of solid state elements that manifest more modern display possibilities in obvious utility and obvious design, all anticipated by prior art, long, long ago.

See also:

The Pinch Gesture as an Ancient Non-Patentable Natural Physical Historical and Technological Hand Mechanism With Prior Pinch Pot Art Galore as Obvious as the Hand in Front of Your Face : Our Modern Patent Systems are Operating in a Fantasy World

Samsung Digital Picture Frame 2006 is Clear Designer Prior Art to the Later "Design" of the iPhone and iPad

The Apple iPhone as a Design Copy of the First Pharaonic Cartouche of the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt: A Design in the Public Domain as Prior Art for 4500 Years

Ancient Rectangular Mirrors With Rounded Corners as Image Inventions Precede the iPad by Thousands of Years: Apple Did Not Invent These Basic Designs

Old California Speed Limit Sign is Virtually Identical in Design to Apple iPad

Massachusetts First Standardized License Plate 1957 as Nearly Identical Prior Art for the Apple Phone

Motor Vehicle Registration Plates - License Plates - As Your Most Obvious Prior Art for Text and Graphic Information Displays on Rectangular Surfaces with Rounded Edges Enclosed in Bezels

In the Year 2525 ... You Won't Be Able to Move a Finger Without Paying Apple LOL

U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 Blocked by Preliminary Injunction Because of Patent Suit : Infringement Actions As THE Legal Weapon of Choice to Block Potential Competition

Minimalist Rounded Corner Design is Ubiquitous, So Why Should One Company be able to get ANY Rights to That Design

Only an inventor knows how to borrow, and every man is or should be an inventor. — Ralph Waldo Emerson

Sky Earth Native America

Sky Earth Native America 1 :
American Indian Rock Art Petroglyphs Pictographs
Cave Paintings Earthworks & Mounds as Land Survey & Astronomy
Volume 1, Edition 2, 266 pages, by Andis Kaulins.

  • Sky Earth Native America 2 :
    American Indian Rock Art Petroglyphs Pictographs
    Cave Paintings Earthworks & Mounds as Land Survey & Astronomy
    Volume 2, Edition 2, 262 pages, by Andis Kaulins.

  • Both volumes have the same cover except for the labels "Volume 1" viz. "Volume 2".
    The image on the cover was created using public domain space photos of Earth from NASA.


    Both book volumes contain the following basic book description:
    "Alice Cunningham Fletcher observed in her 1902 publication in the American Anthropologist
    that there is ample evidence that some ancient cultures in Native America, e.g. the Pawnee in Nebraska,
    geographically located their villages according to patterns seen in stars of the heavens.
    See Alice C. Fletcher, Star Cult Among the Pawnee--A Preliminary Report,
    American Anthropologist, 4, 730-736, 1902.
    Ralph N. Buckstaff wrote:
    "These Indians recognized the constellations as we do, also the important stars,
    drawing them according to their magnitude.
    The groups were placed with a great deal of thought and care and show long study.
    ... They were keen observers....
    The Pawnee Indians must have had a knowledge of astronomy comparable to that of the early white men."
    See Ralph N. Buckstaff, Stars and Constellations of a Pawnee Sky Map,
    American Anthropologist, Vol. 29, Nr. 2, April-June 1927, pp. 279-285, 1927.
    In our book, we take these observations one level further
    and show that megalithic sites and petroglyphic rock carving and pictographic rock art in Native America,
    together with mounds and earthworks, were made to represent territorial geographic landmarks
    placed according to the stars of the sky using the ready map of the starry sky
    in the hermetic tradition, "as above, so below".
    That mirror image of the heavens on terrestrial land is the "Sky Earth" of Native America,
    whose "rock stars" are the real stars of the heavens, "immortalized" by rock art petroglyphs, pictographs,
    cave paintings, earthworks and mounds of various kinds (stone, earth, shells) on our Earth.
    These landmarks were placed systematically
    in North America, Central America (Meso-America) and South America
    and can to a large degree be reconstructed as the Sky Earth of Native America."

    Most Popular Posts of All Time

    Our Websites and Blogs

    3D Printing and More 99 is not 100 Aabecis AK Photo Blog Ancient Egypt Weblog Ancient Signs (the book) Ancient World Blog Anthropomorphic Design Archaeology Travel Photos (blog) Archaeology Travel Photos (Flickr) Archaeo Pundit Arts Pundit Astrology and Birth Baltic Coachman Bible Pundit Biotechnology Pundit Book Pundit Chronology of the Ancient World Computer Pundit DVD Pundit Easter Island Script Echolat Einstein’s Voice Energy Environment and Climate Blog Etruscan Bronze Liver of Piacenza EU Laws EU Legal EU Pundit FaceBook Pundit Gadget Pundit Garden Pundit Golf Pundit Google Pundit Gourmet Pundit Hand Proof HousePundit Human Migrations Idea Pundit Illyrian Language Indus Valley Script Infinity One : The Secret of the First Disk (the game) Jostandis Journal Pundit Kaulins Genealogy Blog Kaulinsium Kiel & Kieler Latvian Blog Law Pundit Blog LexiLine Group Lexiline Journal Library Pundit Lingwhizt LinkedIn Literary Pundit Magnifichess Make it Music Maps and Cartography Megalithic World Megaliths Blog Minoan Culture Mutatis Mutandis Nanotech Pundit Nostratic Languages Official Pundit Phaistos Disc Pharaonic Hieroglyphs Photo Blog of the World Pinterest Prehistoric Art Pundit Private Wealth Blog PunditMania Quanticalian Quick to Travel Quill Pundit Road Pundit Shelfari Sky Earth Drones Sky Earth Native America SlideShare (akaulins) Sport Pundit Star Pundit Stars Stones and Scholars (blog) Stars Stones and Scholars (book) Stonehenge Pundit The Enchanted Glass Twitter Pundit UbiquitousPundit Vision of Change VoicePundit WatchPundit Wearable Technology Wizard WeTechWi Wine Pundit Word Pundit xistmz YahooPundit zistmz