0

The patent for a time machine has been filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office by one Dr. Marvin B. Pohlman of Tulsa, Oklahoma.

By creating an artificial wormhole time travel is possible. At first glance, such a thing might be too fantastic a notion to believe, yet Pohlman does hold a Bachelor of Science in Engineering Physics, an MBA from Lexington Business School, and a PhD in computer science from Trinity University. He's also a member of Portland Mensa, and is a Licensed Professional Engineer, Certified Information Systems Auditor, Certified Information Security Manager and Certified Information Systems security professional. Perhaps he invented the time machine because he discovered he hasn't enough time to squeeze in everything he wants to accomplish?

Does anybody know if US 2006/0073976 A1 describes how to build a time machine? And how it is possible that this patent was filed without any issues?

Related:

3

Anyone can file an application for a patent with whatever material they wish. No actual patent has been granted in this case (it was rejected in 2007 and abandoned in 2008).

FYI, any publication number with the format US YEAR/7DIGITS (e.g., US 2006/0073976) is a pre-grant publication of an application as filed, not an actual patent.

  • Thanks for a reply, so what's an actual patent format then? – kenorb Aug 18 '14 at 15:31
  • 1
    In the upper right of the document itself, the word "Patent No.:" rather than "Pub. No.:". Also an international convention says an "A?" at the end is an application and a "B?" is a patent. – George White Aug 18 '14 at 17:44
1

just because a patent was rejected doesen't mean that it's not valid science. you can actually read the patent yourself if you can understand it. I can understand most of it, it's just the equations I have trouble with but they can be googled. I've studies this patent with colleagues, we think it can be possible if microsingularities can be maintained. It's not hard to google the equations to find out what they reference, if you have the time. You have to have at least a moderate interest in physics to understand this stuff, I being a computer programmer am not specialized but I have friends who are and we've discussed this in lay men terms. IT really is a good patent it's just missing exactly what it says it's missing and that's probably why it was rejected because microsingularities haven't been invented or even observed yet, but they are possible. But keep in mind this patent isn't patenting Kerr black holes, it's patenting a machine that uses them, even if theoretically. I think the main reason it was rejected is because he included the John Titor diagrams which are already copyrighted and trademarked by the John Titor Foundation under Larry Haber.

  • 1
    actually it's not even a patent for the machinery per se but the science that goes behind the engineering! in fact according to the diagrams a lot of the parts in the machine already exist except for the microsingularities that are housed at the top; one doesent travel through them, they simply power the machine. the machine is made with atomic clocks and GE/tesla tech. the only thing that needs "inventing" is the VGL system and a way to safely vent the radiation that is generated. also this can be used as a pretty dangerous weapon unfortunately. another possible reason for rejection. – JayMartinez Nov 29 '16 at 4:03
  • 1
    The official reason for the rejection is the lack of utility - meaning a lack of sufficient prove of this invention beeing possible/executable. (Quote: Final Rejection document from 08.08. 2007) – DonQuiKong Nov 29 '16 at 20:08

protected by Community Oct 6 '17 at 7:19

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.