Everything that can be invented, has been invented..
                                                                  .......Charles H. Duell, 1899

The commissioner of the U.S. Office Of Patents, Charles Duell, uttered this phrase in 1899. My question,
does this statement hold true now? I am not talking about things that can help you open jars, or things
that will organize your closet. I'm talking about world changing, life altering inventions. Has everything
been invented? Is all that is left to invent just adaptions to what has already been invented? Are there
any great minds left to give us that one thing that we can't live without?

My answer is no, it's not that something can't be invented it's just that todays society won't allow a
creative mind. All the great minds of the past, Tesla, Edison, Kepler, Newton, Einstein all suffered from
from either, manic depression or bi-polar disorder. Not that we shouldn't try to control these conditions
but it was because of these conditions these men were able to spend hours upon hours in their own
little world creating things for the betterment of mankind. Todays society is too quick to give kids a
drug to calm them down if they are too active or one to perk them them up. Creativity is something
in an uncorrupted mind. Behavioral drugs we are feeding are children are lessening their ability to be
creative. Is it a coincidence that since they put a name on these disorders and started treating people
afflicted with them that there are less engineers and scientist graduating from universities?

That is kind of an open ended question.  I think the answer is yes.  If there is nothing else to invent I think human being would be at a stand still.  Part of man's core existance is his ability to create and invent. :)

That is kind of an open ended question.  I think the answer is yes.  If there is nothing else to invent I think human being would be at a stand still.  Part of man's core existance is his ability to create and invent. :)


It may be an open ended question but it is still up for debate. Man has stumbled through life for centuries
creating what he needed to survive or to make daily life easier. From the wheel to the cart to the car,
but have we reached a pinnacle? Most things in the patent office today are just improvements of some-
thing already on the market. Who could be the next Copernicus, the one to shake the pillars of society?

Right, but it is human nature to invent or improve on something.  You know how many people have asked this same question throughout history.  My thought is if people are still asking the question then we're not done inventing yet. :)

Invention will be alive and well as long as we need to invent more "tools".  After all, it is the conscious use of tools that distinguishes Man from other animals, and everything ever invented is basically just a more sophisticated tool.

When that quote was made, there was already a huge area of invention that was about to be exploited: automobiles & the Internal Combustion Engine.  Just think of all the things made for cars since 1900.

My great-great uncle was Charles Kettering.  Although unknown today, in the first half of the 20th century, he was as famous as Tom Edison.  However, he did not "brag" as much about what he did, so largely faded into obscurity after his death.  Among his inventions was the fully automatic cash register, pneumatic transfer devices (still used at drive-up bank tellers), the electric car starter, freon air conditioning, lead fuel additives, ariel torpedoes, a fore-runner of the Iron Lung, and the gas powered generator.  The generator was invented by his personal invention company, Delco (before it was bought by GM and renamed "AC-Delco").  He was also founder of the Kettering Cancer Institute (now known as "Sloan-Kettering").  And ironically, an invention he made for treating VD before the discovery of Penacilin was the "Fever Chamber".  In the last decade, it has been brought back out as a treatment for HIV and AIDS.

And where would Ron Popeil be if this was true?  How could we have survived without the Record Vac, Mr. Microphone, The Inside The Egg Shell Egg Scrambler, Pocket Fisherman, and the Showtime Rotisserie?

Mr. Duell was a dope, apparently.

I think we have to take a serious look at revising our production and use of the internal comustion engine.  I wish atomic weapons could be un-invented, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle!
:(

What we have to do in the 21st century is invent things that will save us from the things we invented in the 20th century!
:D

Ronco was the company I had in mind when I stated that I didn't mean better ways
to open a jar or organize your closet. I don't consider a better way to dice a tomato
a life altering invention.

When the Wright Brother first designed their flying machine they had countless detractors.
Karl Benz and other automobile pioneers were told their contraption would never have a
practical use. Philo T. Farnsworth was criticized and told the same thing. The airplane, the
automobile and the television changed the world. these are just a few examples of what I
am dicussing. I want to know, have we reached a point were these types of inventions are
beyond our reach? Many great thinkers spent hours devising and tinkering, perfecting their
gadgets. Does todays society have the patience and desire to while away hours tinkering,
often with failure, to prove detractors wrong? Will any one be able to give us a world changing
product?

Mr. Duell was a dope, apparently

What we have to do in the 21st century is invent things that will save us from the things we invented in the 20th century!
:D


True, so very true!

To be honest, I'm amazed at the technology we have now. I'm amazed by my cell phone, my digital camera, and especially my MP3 player. And I can't help but wonder that if such high-tech devices are available to us, then what kinds of advanced technology does the government have that they're not telling us about?

I not only agree, but I have been saying this for a long time.  We have obviously reached a point where we are at the end of our creative rope (remakes, rehashes and comebacks) and technology is being used in different ways, but not a lot is new....the one thing I see that is a combination of these two symptoms is companies forcing more entertainment down people['s throats by making it available everywhere.  I need ot watch tv and listen to music on my phone all day , everywhere I go?  Yeah, if they want to get marketing and messages across to you.

Big technological advances created machinery and devices that could be used by scientists, but were slowly fed out to the public so we could get sued to it all slowly- soon you will have one of those steel ecto-skeletons that lifts tons of weight to help yourself clean out your garage...just not yet.
The stuff is around, we, the meek, just don't use it yet.

(can you tell i'm a tree hugger and anti-technology take over? can you also tell i'm not very good at making my point? forgive me.)

Me and Kay have discussed this and come to the correct conclusion.

There is constant re-evaluation of existing technology to adapt it to the public sector, as this goes on there are further advances in the military, aviation, nano-technological, medical and computer fields. Think Wi-Fi, just a few years ago, could you have sat and accessed the internet in a park?

LaMontsegur: you know about Darpanet
kartean: then you are in the movie Alien
LaMontsegur: right
kartean: on a mining ship
kartean: there you have it
kartean: our futures carved out.
kartean: desperate for resources
kartean: trained at home
kartean: with games and phones and appliances and cars
kartean: i won't be that.
kartean: did that sound crazy?
kartean: I"m sorry...you said something..tell me about Darpanet.
LaMontsegur: Darpanet, the military internet, existed before the net
LaMontsegur: my grandfather used it
kartean: oh yeah
kartean: i remember
LaMontsegur: The development and advancement reasearch project agency
kartean: right
kartean: i rememmber
LaMontsegur: UmmHmm
LaMontsegur: all sorts of stuff
LaMontsegur: we're just getting terraflops now
LaMontsegur: (Trillion floating points of information)
LaMontsegur: A new storage system
LaMontsegur: but the military has used the system for years
kartean: right
kartean: we are in the public sector, light years from them
LaMontsegur: correct
kartean: i'ts not invented and put on the shelves of stores
LaMontsegur: and to be honest
kartean: its changed to suit our needs and ability
LaMontsegur: I prefer it that way
LaMontsegur: I like my simple existence

right the technology is there, we just are not able to get our hands on it yet. we get it a bit at a time...things are not invented and sold the next day.

It takes at least two inventive minds to create something...one to make it in the first place, and one to figure out how to mass-produce and market it so that everyone has one.

I can't say much more here lest I turn this into a political thread where one doesn't belong.  I'm must not bedazzled by cell phones and iPods when our social contract is going to hell in a handcart.  These consumer gadgets don't solve the problems we need to solve.
::)

If someone were to invent a solar panel system just 50% more efficient than the current ones, and/or at 1/2 the price, I think the world would drastically change in short order. Solar power would then be cheaper than most currently generated forms of electricity.

If someone were to invent a solar panel system just 50% more efficient than the current ones, and/or at 1/2 the price, I think the world would drastically change in short order. Solar power would then be cheaper than most currently generated forms of electricity.



There is research going into this and fuel cells at the moment.  Fuel cells have ben touted as 'the next big thing' for at least the last ten years.  Unfortunately it is only rarely that a big breakthrough occurs things usually improve in much smaller steps.

PV research at my uni

fuel cell research company

Sure there is something all the time being invented...but think how someone invented a square then another rounded it to become a wheel..another made it from rubber and calls it a tire..

New ideas?....They are working on a way/system/device  to make things invisible like Harry Potters Invisibility Cloak! So far it works on a copper coil...

how about something we all could use? XRAY vision or ability to fly..maybe someone can show everyone how to levitate if they say they could do it?

 

Yeah it can...I'm still waiting for Staples to come out with the real life version of the "Easy" button

On a side note, discovery is a form of invention. There are many more things yet to be
discovered. We continue to explore space and leave the oceans untouched. We know
more about whats in space than we do about whats in our oceans.

What about the medical field? They have found hundreds of ways to treat Cancer but
they haven't been able to cure Cancer. Could it be that they are not really looking for a
cure? Could it be that Cancer Research generates billions of dollars a year and the research
facilities know than stand to lose that funding should Cancer be cured? Just think, how
many people are making money off of research, not just Cancer but AIDS, Alzheimer's,
and many more. Could the drive to be rich, greater than the drive to find a cure?


It's said that, "The only thing stats prove, is that you can use stats to prove anything." Scientist
can't seem to agree. One side says Global Warming is man made and the other says it's natures
way of healing itself. How can so many scientist, using the same data, come to two completely
different conclusions. Couldn't these scientist work together and come up with an idea to
rectify the problem? Manmade or not, it is happening and something needs to be done.

^ Well, a lot of academic people in my field would just go on and study something else if cancer were cured.  I think it may be different in industry though, as without cancer as a backbone they'd have to focus on something else, like ALS or multiple sclerosis.  Health care will always hold plenty of opportunities for the right businessmen.

Cancer is notorious in that it's one of those classes of diseases that are random.  No two cancers are exactly alike, which means that it's difficult to have an all-out targeted "cure", and why doctors still use full blast chemotherapy to hopefully get rid of anything that overgrows.  So the bulk of the research is in turning the shotgun approach into a targeted approach, i.e. once you figure out what the cancer is through biopsy and histology, use a specific treatment rather than bathing the entire patient in poison.

A cure for cancer is not going to be easy, and the lack of one isn't because people aren't trying or that some illuminati guy is sitting on the cure due to some economic or population control conspiracy ;)

BTW, scientists disagree on a lot more things than just global warming.  They always try to formulate new models of how a particular process is occurring, and interpret data differently more because of philosophy than what is stated in the facts (it begins with less facts, and more philosophy, then gradually shifts to dogma as facts present themselves). 

I know scientist disagree on many issues, I only mention a few because, I've learned on these
sites the more you write the less people read. I just try to stoke the fires a little.

It just seems that, the diseases of the past that are theoretically capable of wiping out millions
of people have all been cured. Measles, Mumps, Chicken Pox, Polio. They even find cures for
new airborne diseases of today capable of the same devastation. Genetic diseases on the other
hand go on their slow kill while foundation after foundation rake in the billions. I'm not saying that
there is some evil scientist sitting on a cure. I'm just asking, are they really trying?

Walk a mile in my shoes and you'll see how hard it really is ;)

The reason diseases like mumps, rubella, dysentery etc. are curable and in some cases eradicated is that there is usually only one general causative agent (i.e. a virus or a bacterium), which means that a targeted vaccine or antibiotic would be more than enough to rid you of that disease.

The reason that diseases like cancer or multiple sclerosis can't be cured all the time is because in most cases, scientists don't know what's going on.  In this case, a lot of the funding going into the research is hoping for a shot in the dark by some lucky scientist who can find out what's going on.  In private industry, for example, billions were poured into creating anti-cancer agents such as Herceptin and Avastin, which specifically target an estrogen receptor and a blood vessel forming molecule, respectively.  But these still don't have 100% success, because cancers, unfortunately, are more adaptable and smarter than we are...so far.

You can't cure cancer overnight, and there's some good in being impatient about getting rid of something that has taken so many lives, but at the same time, give the scientists a break...these things take a lot of hard work and perseverance and ingenuity that can't be discounted.

I also need to mention that many times, scientists can publish something that the media goes ga-ga over, and it turns out to be dead wrong.  Don't believe everything you read.

I'm just asking, are they really trying?


Think about this. You can make thousands selling anti-depressants to somebody for 40 years.
You might make $100 selling somebody a course of pills to cure a disease.

Still waiting for this.

http://www.furious-d.com/jetpack.jpg

If we had unlimited resources and whatnot, technology - and the invention of new technologies - will progress exponentionally. As we're realising now, it will be such limitations as the lack of basic fuels, and raw materials - which are required for the most advanced technology. So I don't think the next 30 years will see an explosion of sci-fi like tech as suggested in sci-fi movies, books.etc - rather as a compromise between restriction and development, which may spur (hopefully) 'better' development and progression, rather than just fancy inventions' for their own sake.

Still waiting for this.

http://www.furious-d.com/jetpack.jpg


James Bond's jetpack!  :o


If we had unlimited resources and whatnot, technology - and the invention of new technologies - will progress exponentionally. As we're realising now, it will be such limitations as the lack of basic fuels, and raw materials - which are required for the most advanced technology. So I don't think the next 30 years will see an explosion of sci-fi like tech as suggested in sci-fi movies, books.etc - rather as a compromise between restriction and development, which may spur (hopefully) 'better' development and progression, rather than just fancy inventions' for their own sake.


A lot of "innovation" is in new ways to entertain people, i.e. game consoles, big screen TVs, pimped out cars etc.  So invention is happening, it just doesn't seem to always happen in the right areas.

Still waiting for this.

http://www.furious-d.com/jetpack.jpg


yo TIA: remind you of any movie scene in particular? :D ;D

yo TIA: remind you of any movie scene in particular? :D ;D
WHY?!

WHY?!


8) ;)

Good Morning America this morning had an episode on futuristic items. Furniture that moved itself,
a refrigerator that tells you when the milk is bad, a bed that uses an electromagnet to float and
a pair of sunglasses with a built in tivo device. They also brought up flying cars, a concept that has
been around for about 75 years. Right now there are a millions of idiots who can't drive on a road,
can you imagine them flying?

Again, all these innovations are just improvements of what is already available, do we have the resource,
the capability or imagination to create something mind boggling?

ofcourse everything hasn't been invented. just think, time travel, teleportation, mind chips that will teach you every thing known to man within seconds, jet packs, flying cars, smart assistant robots, or terminators. were not even close to being done. the human race will never be done inventing. we won't exist long enough to run out of ideas.

ofcourse everything hasn't been invented. just think, time travel, teleportation, mind chips that will teach you every thing known to man within seconds, jet packs, flying cars, smart assistant robots, or terminators. were not even close to being done. the human race will never be done inventing. we won't exist long enough to run out of ideas.


I think you can forget about time travel. If our futuristic selves found a way to travel in time wouldn't
they have shown up already. Even then, they would change history just by being there. on a final note,
it is physically impossible to co-exist with yourself or any of your past or future relatives.

^ actually science has proven that time travel exists. ever heard of the twin paradox? creepy stuff! hard to believe.

^ actually science has proven that time travel exists. ever heard of the twin paradox? creepy stuff! hard to believe.


Proved eh? The last I heard, the twin. or clock, paradox was still just a theory because in order to
prove or disprove this theory they would have to be able to travel, at least, 86.6% the speed
of light. Even then, it isn't necessarily time travel but the bending of time. At no point in this theory
did the twin traveling in the rocket have to co-exist with himself. Did Langevin or Einstein have a theory
on how to co-exist? Technically speaking, we are all time travelers, travling into the future one second
at a time and that is how it will always be.

I think you can forget about time travel. If our futuristic selves found a way to travel in time wouldn't
they have shown up already. Even then, they would change history just by being there. on a final note,
it is physically impossible to co-exist with yourself or any of your past or future relatives.


I tend to agree. I believe, even if time travel does or will exist, you can't interact with the very same you. Having that very meeting and interaction will change it automatically. If you see yourself in the future, its going to be an alternate future self.

For example, let's say I travelled ahead five years to 2011 and decided to check up on myself and we had a short conversation then I went back home. Well, the me of 2011 would've been the one who naturally lived those 5 years, so he wouldn't have remembered time travelling like I would. In other words, by the time I reach 2011, I will remember making the trip. The "original, non time travelling me" would not.

Conversely, if I went back to 1995, the '95 me will be seeing his future self (since 11 years ago I never had my older self visit me).


P.S. This is the first nerdy time travel post I've done in awhile. ;D