Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Nikola Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity

  1. Dec 22, 2009 #1
    I've read small bits of Tesla's Theory of gravity., but nothing in detail. Does anyone actually know how he explained the phenomenon of gravity? I know this is a vague question, and I don't know exactly what I'm looking for, but any information on the basis of why he rejected Einstein's General Relativity would be interesting.
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 22, 2009 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    According to the wiki he said he developed one but never published it. This was BEFORE GR. For his criticisms of GR, there are several philosophical objections noted but nothing of substance.

    So I'm not sure there is really anything to discuss here
  4. Dec 22, 2009 #3
    I'm sure a scientist such as Nikola Tesla would have some sort of physics and mathematics behind his claims. I believe I read that he didn't completely develop his theory before death (which would be after GR). I might be incorrect though.

    I guess I'm asking if anyone knows any reasoning behind gravity, according to Tesla. Rather than the effects (space-time is not curved).

    The only VAGUE thing I remember about his explanation of gravity is some sort of electromotive force causing downward "momentum" of the matter that makes us due to the spin of the Earth. This could be WAY off from what I read. It's been a while and I couldn't find the source again.
  5. Apr 11, 2011 #4
    I think it's going pretty far to call Tesla a scientist. He's generally only ever considered an inventor and engineer. He was never trained in "pure science" nor did any of his work really fall within that category.

    Anyway, it's pretty obvious Tesla did not consider the "theory" valid. He would definitely have published had he thought it had even the vaguest merit. After all those patent fights with Edison and Marconi, he was obsessed with obtaining proper credit for any work he did, no matter how trivial or incomplete.

    For a self-promoter of Tesla's level, believing he had done work on a scale capable of bringing him greater credit than Einstein (who's work he claimed was derivative), he would have raced to publish. To say that he didn't publish it in any form, and that the body of work was held unpublished from 1894 to his death in 1943... well, it implies he didn't think that any part of the theory was workable.
  6. Apr 11, 2011 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why do people have this religious belief in Tesla? His PR was fabulous and he did make exceedingly good sparks but what else, apart from the Legend?
    It's almost Freddy Starr ate my hamster, as far as I can see.
  7. Apr 11, 2011 #6
    I agree. Tesla is little more than the "Legend." His contributions to electrical engineering were minor, in that a number of engineers were pursuing identical work simultaneously, and often his "recognition" as "inventor" is a result of timely patent filing for subjects that a number of other engineers had already cracked, but hadn't filed on.

    I recently spoke to a friend who expressed the ridiculous notion that Tesla's contributions outweighed von Neumann, Bohr and Hisenburg, to the extent that you could have "shot them in the head" during childhood and seen no difference in the world, while Tesla was irrevocably important.

    That absurdity, as it was reflected in this thread needs to be fought.

    Which is why I pulled up a zombie thread on my first go.
  8. Apr 11, 2011 #7
    His contributions to modern power distribution in electrical engineering are not minor at all. His most significant inventions are still powering much of the industrial world at this instant.

    He was not as prolific an inventor as Edison but he invented using theory and it was advanced for his time. He invented the brushless induction motor in 1883.

    The comment about Bohr et. al. is hyperbole. His contributions to physics are not great but as an electrical engineer he was ahead of his time.

    Later in life he worked on what would be considered fringe technology today but would have been seen as plausible experimentation in his day.

    He may have stumbled onto some unknown physical principles through his experimental work, or he may have become an eccentric recluse. Nobody knows for sure.

    I could go into it in much greater depth to bring out the connections to modern fringe physics, crackpottery and actual military work going on in weapons and propulsion but it would violate the forum guidelines.
  9. Apr 12, 2011 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It would be very unlikely that these unspecified "unknown" physical phenomena would not have been 'discovered' again by someone else in the intervening years. It would also be surprising that one of his interested followers had not carried out some of this fringe stuff to a successful conclusion is it were, indeed, of any real worth.
    His glamour gets more and more as time goes by. Distance lends enchantment, I feel.
    Thank PF for those guidelines!
  10. Apr 12, 2011 #9
    Let's see if I can pen this response artfully enough to make my point without actually triggering a moderator beat-down.

    Well, Sophiecentaur, you are correct in that it was unlikely. And you are twice correct in that some of his interested followers have carried his work forward to a conclusion.

    Ironically to a thoroughly negative conclusion as far as I know. His theories were revived for a time after ~1947 but ultimately were deemed unnecessary to people doing the reviving. And although I could tell you much more of my personal eyewitness accounts about the matter, I cannot do so here without censure.

    I have mixed feelings about the pf guidelines. I know why they are in place but it makes me really sad sometimes. Mainly because there is no other forum so richly endowed with people who aren't crackpots.

    Imagine a forum where the finest medical practitioners are gathered with laypeople to discuss every type of medical procedure; but the forums were closed to the healing experiences of native American shaman. Hmmm.

    There should be a single place in this forum where those with crackpot ideas can come and do their thing. There is such a place here for political threads and random observations, but not fringe topics in physics. I think this deficit diminishes the value of the forum as an antidote to genuine crackpottery while simultaneously stifling honest discourse in ill-formulated physics theories.

    Just my two cents.
  11. Apr 13, 2011 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I wrote of "a successful conclusion"; that was my point. If there had been one, the results of the work would have been shouted from the rooftops.

    As for the work of shamans, it has its place amongst all the other fringe medicines. The developed world's version of this would possibly be Homeopathy. That field has consistently be shown to have results that are statistically insignificant. Yet, the proponents just say that 'more studies' are needed. We are up to our necks with studies which have failed to find a valid case for homeopathy but the enthusiasts still call for more. It's a bit like the "best of three", "best of five", "best of seven" sequence, called for by someone who keeps losing the toss. If people really want to believe in something then it is up to them (and they will attribute any positive outcome to it) but there's only a finite amount of justifiable effort available on the part of legit Science for investigating it. If there really were 'something in it' then the likelihood is that someone, by now, would have taken it up and it would have joined mainstream Science.There's an interesting 'anti-parallel' to all this with the Climate Deniers.
  12. Apr 13, 2011 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I thnk you need to find the subset of science (if there is one) where Tesla's more unconventional ideas belong, rather than letting "laypeople" use them to confuse discussions where they clearly don't belong. And if I wanted to pursue this, I would be much more interested in finding out what Tesla actually said and wrote, than in what most of the "laypeople" on the internet think he said and wrote.

    It isn't very obvious how much of "Teslaism" relates to mainstream EM theory and electrical engineering as practised in the 21st century, any more than how much of shamanism relates to say keyhole surgery in medicine - though shamanism may well have some valid inputs to psychology, and I'm open minded enough to consider the possibility that Teslaism may have a place somewhere in science.
  13. Apr 13, 2011 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's an interesting word - "Teslaism".
    The few 'isms' that there are in scientific study, tend to refer the the Science (e.g. Darwinism, Keynsism) but this one refers to the 'magic' (usually unspecified) of the personality.
    Darwin'ism' is used as a shorthand for work that has carried on and been extended usefully (despite what the public seem to think). Keynsism is well defined and work has carried on. Strange there isn't any 'Einsteinism' or 'Pauliism'. The Public is fickle.

    One might be interested to learn of what Tesla actually said and wrote but, as you say, it's not plastered about anywhere is it? Could that reflect on its actual worth, I wonder? Barnum and Bailey were pretty famous in their time and their names live on, too. Information has a way of finding an outlet that is appropriate to its worth and it's not surprising that vast, impressive sparks are still appreciated by adults and schoolkids, alike. He certainly deserves credit for that.
  14. Jan 30, 2012 #13
    Being a young idealist and a Tesla worshipper, I'm rather curious about this theory.

    Why is it not publicly available?
  15. Jan 30, 2012 #14


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Conspiracy, I imagine.
    It couldn't possibly be because it was not good enough to fit the rest of Physics.
    Nicola had hundreds of ideas. How come they were not of interest to commercial developers? He was not a God, just full of interesting ideas.
  16. Jan 30, 2012 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    2018 Award

    Because it didn't work. That's why. And that's assuming he even had one.
    Wikipedia states: When he was 81, Tesla stated he had completed a "dynamic theory of gravity".[82] He stated that it was "worked out in all details" and that he hoped to soon give it to the world.[83] The theory was never published.

    Given the amount of "boasting" that Tesla was known to do, it is exceedingly unlikely that Tesla developed a working theory of gravity better than General Relativity. Keep in mind that GR has passed every single test ever developed so far. Measurements of light bending around stars, frame dragging, time dilation, and much more have all been verified with extremely high precision.

    Tesla was easily capable of publishing a theory, he had plenty of experience developing patents and related items. The fact that he did not indicates that he probably did not have a working theory.
  17. Jan 30, 2012 #16
    He did not have a gravitational theory on par with GR. Not even close.

    What he claims to have had (which has given rise to endless conspiracy theories) is the discovery of an experimental effect in which a certain mechanical arrangement of matter together with some high voltage would be able to form a propulsive impulse without hurling a physical mass.

    If you made an acoustical cannon that could knock over a brick wall, nobody would claim the physics was anything but ordinary. But if that same cannon could operate in a vacuum, then you'd conclude that it wasn't using sound. And if you were something of an engineering genius you might think that you'd discovered an unknown link between electromagnetism and gravity.

    He didn't of course because as most of us know, GR is the gold standard of gravitational theories and doesn't contain a strong tie between EM and gravity. What he actually did discover (and indeed whether he in fact discovered anything at all) is for the historians and secret government laboratories to decide.
  18. Jan 31, 2012 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Which inventions did you have in mind, btw?
  19. Jan 31, 2012 #18
    Okay. Thanks for the quick replys :)
  20. Feb 13, 2012 #19
    You mean except for when you go into the atomic level, right? Because it sort of fails there. Or so i've heard anyways, i haven't actually studied physics enough to know exactly how it fails.

    You just seem to claim that it "doesn't work", even though the only people that actually have a chance at having a copy of his dynamic theory of gravity is the US government. As you've never seen the work yourself, it seems a bit unfair to claim that it doesn't work. Also, there are plenty of theories that don't work that are still out. Why are his papers such a big deal if they don't mean anything?

    This is just silly. Just because he didn't patent it doesn't mean that it didn't work. I think it could be comparably to the fact that tesla discovered x-ray radiation first, yet it was three years later that Wilhelm Roentgen was credited for it.
  21. Feb 14, 2012 #20
    As you have never seen the theory itself, it may seem a bit unfair to claim that there is a theory.

    Since there is little evidence supporting either side of these claims regarding Tesla's theory, all we have are unsubstantiated opinions.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook