Nikola Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity

[Neandethal00]

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.

My comments are nothing against SR and GR, but in general.

There's something that bother me about experimental physicists, which I have noticed again and again.

The experimentalists set out to prove a theory. They take a set of data, but at first data do not match with theory. So they tweak the equipment for error in the machine, adjust the data for correction. They keep correcting the data for various possible or anticipated errors until the data fit the theory. Then they claim theory is proven.

Once the data fit the theory, they do not correct data anymore. As if end of the story, data can not be incorrect anymore. I find it very strange.

 

[Mark M]

My comments are nothing against SR and GR, but in general.

There's something that bother me about experimental physicists, which I have noticed again and again.

The experimentalists set out to prove a theory. They take a set of data, but at first data do not match with theory. So they tweak the equipment for error in the machine, adjust the data for correction. They keep correcting the data for various possible or anticipated errors until the data fit the theory. Then they claim theory is proven.

Once the data fit the theory, they do not correct data anymore. As if end of the story, data can not be incorrect anymore. I find it very strange.

Give one example of this happening.

 

[HallsofIvy]

What make you say it is not publicly available? I googled "Tesla" and "gravity" and the first hit was:
http://peswiki.com/energy/PowerPedia:Tesla's_Dynamic_Theory_of_Gravity

another is:
http://www.netowne.com/technology/important/

 

[Neandethal00]

Give one example of this happening.

Detection of number of neutrinos coming from the sun.
MIT experiment on Earth gravity changing wavelength of light.

I'm sure there are valid explanations.

 

[ZapperZ]

My comments are nothing against SR and GR, but in general.

There's something that bother me about experimental physicists, which I have noticed again and again.

The experimentalists set out to prove a theory. They take a set of data, but at first data do not match with theory. So they tweak the equipment for error in the machine, adjust the data for correction. They keep correcting the data for various possible or anticipated errors until the data fit the theory. Then they claim theory is proven.

Once the data fit the theory, they do not correct data anymore. As if end of the story, data can not be incorrect anymore. I find it very strange.

I'm an experimentalist, and what you say is patently false.

Morley-Michaelson experiment is one such example that falsifies your claim.

I can also cite many different experiments in condensed matter physics that falsified dozens of theories and ideas.

The discovery of Dark Matter and Dark Energy caused several several of our prevailing ideas about cosmology to be thrown out of the window.

Need I go on? I would even say that nothing delights an experimentalist even more than to prove a theory wrong!

Why is it that whenever Tesla's work is being discussed on here, it borders on crackpottery and with people bashing physics one way or the other? If you don't buy physics, or if you don't buy experimental physics, in particular, go live in a cave! It will only expose you as a hypocrite because you say one thing, but your actions of using your modern electronics (I'm assuming you are using a computer to write your rants, unless you have perfected telepathy) simply makes your complaints sound rather hollow!

Zz.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Without experimental Physicists there is no Physics. There would be no evidence so a hypothesis couldn't be tested. Physics would be no better than bar-room chat.
I don't think this guy has any real life Science experience.

 

[Neandethal00]

I'm an experimentalist, and what you say is patently false.

Why is it that whenever Tesla's work is being discussed on here, it borders on crackpottery and with people bashing physics one way or the other? If you don't buy physics, or if you don't buy experimental physics, in particular, go live in a cave! It will only expose you as a hypocrite because you say one thing, but your actions of using your modern electronics (I'm assuming you are using a computer to write your rants, unless you have perfected telepathy) simply makes your complaints sound rather hollow!

Zz.

A moderator should not make this comment.
Crackpottery? I don't even give a damn about Tesla. Never read anything seriously about him or his work. I was bringing in certain aspect of current physics, not entire physics. I earn part of my living using physics. So, I can criticize it if I want to.
Do not try to read other people's mind.

The discovery of Dark Matter and Dark Energy

They are discovered? Sorry, I didn't get the memo.

 

[TurtleMeister]

My comments are nothing against SR and GR, but in general.

There's something that bother me about experimental physicists, which I have noticed again and again.

The experimentalists set out to prove a theory. They take a set of data, but at first data do not match with theory. So they tweak the equipment for error in the machine, adjust the data for correction. They keep correcting the data for various possible or anticipated errors until the data fit the theory. Then they claim theory is proven.

Once the data fit the theory, they do not correct data anymore. As if end of the story, data can not be incorrect anymore. I find it very strange.

Give one example of this happening.

The Millikan oil drop experiment

 

[zonova]

I don't feel I owe Tesla anything in particular. He's certainly near the bottom of a list of past Engineers and Scientists who have far more useful legacies. Tesla transformer - big deal!
It is ridiculous to place him on a par with Einstein. I'd place him more at the Clive Sinclair level.

I think that you're forgetting most of modern electronics would probably not exist if Tesla had not invented Alternating Current. He also invented wireless communication, the AC motor, and many other things. To say that you don't owe him anything in particular... well, I'm not sure if you would be able to post this message from your computer to the internet if he had not done the things that he did.

 

[ZapperZ]

A moderator should not make this comment.
Crackpottery? I don't even give a damn about Tesla. Never read anything seriously about him or his work. I was bringing in certain aspect of current physics, not entire physics. I earn part of my living using physics. So, I can criticize it if I want to.
Do not try to read other people's mind.

The discovery of Dark Matter and Dark Energy

They are discovered? Sorry, I didn't get the memo.

And did you also missed the memo on the rest of the experiments I mentioned? Or do you consider those (such as the discovery of High-Tc superconductors) to also be not "discovered"? This is clearly a diversion to detract for the FACT that I've given sufficient examples to falsify your assertion.

And if you "earn part of your living using physics", you also should not make the comment that you made. So apply that same rule to you. Next time before you make baseless insulting comments, because some of them will be used against you.

Zz.

 

[Drakkith]

I think that you're forgetting most of modern electronics would probably not exist if Tesla had not invented Alternating Current. He also invented wireless communication, the AC motor, and many other things. To say that you don't owe him anything in particular... well, I'm not sure if you would be able to post this message from your computer to the internet if he had not done the things that he did.

Tesla did not invent alternating current. He was one of many people to apply it's principles to develop new technology, such as AC power transmission on a large scale. Your claim that modern electronics wouldn't exist if Tesla hadn't been around is absurd.

 

[Mark M]

A moderator should not make this comment.
Crackpottery? I don't even give a damn about Tesla. Never read anything seriously about him or his work. I was bringing in certain aspect of current physics, not entire physics. I earn part of my living using physics. So, I can criticize it if I want to.
Do not try to read other people's mind.

The discovery of Dark Matter and Dark Energy

They are discovered? Sorry, I didn't get the memo.

Yes, they are discovered. See the Bullet Cluster for dark matter, and the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics for dark energy.

You can criticize it all you want, but if your criticisms are baseless, others will point this out.

Why is it that whenever Tesla's work is being discussed on here, it borders on crackpottery and with people bashing physics one way or the other?

It happens everywhere anything regarding Tesla is discussed, anywhere. Similar situation for magnets.

I don't see how any of this has any relevance to the topic of the thread.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The Millikan oil drop experiment

How does that example fit the pattern of 'frig the measurements till they fit the theory'? Millikan was not testing a theory, he was trying to measure a quantity as accurately as possible. It took an awful lot of experimentation to establish the value to a reasonable degree of accuracy. I don't think the current value is that much different, is it?

 

[Mark M]

How does that example fit the pattern of 'frig the measurements till they fit the theory'? Millikan was not testing a theory, he was trying to measure a quantity as accurately as possible. It took an awful lot of experimentation to establish the value to a reasonable degree of accuracy. I don't think the current value is that much different, is it?

I believe there is a mere 0.5% difference between Millikan's value and the currently accepted value.

One issue that was raised is that Millikan disregarded too many results. However, this has been debunked. He was simply trying to reduce his statistical error margin. Even with the 'out there' results, the result would only be 2% different from the current value.

And as you say, it is irrelevant to the point being made. There was no prediction of a theory being tested, he was making a measurement.

 

[TurtleMeister]

How does that example fit the pattern of 'frig the measurements till they fit the theory'? Millikan was not testing a theory, he was trying to measure a quantity as accurately as possible. It took an awful lot of experimentation to establish the value to a reasonable degree of accuracy. I don't think the current value is that much different, is it?

I think it fits very well. It doesn't matter whether it's a theory or an experiment. What matters is who's theory/experiment it is and how well known and accepted it/he/she is. I am a supporter of the scientific method. It's just that we are all human, and that sometimes gets in the way.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think it fits very well. It doesn't matter whether it's a theory or an experiment. What matters is who's theory/experiment it is and how well known and accepted it/he/she is. I am a supporter of the scientific method. It's just that we are all human, and that sometimes gets in the way.

For a start, he was proved pretty well right after the event so, if he ditched some results he must have suspected that they were flawed in some way. That is excellent practice because there is no point insisting on the inclusion of suspect results; that would be Bad Science. When you put up a shelf and you do an average of three measurements of width, if one is well out, don't you re-measure? Only an eejit would include the patently dodgy one.

Of course the source of results needs to be taken into account or we'd be accepting all sorts of rubbish, which, again would be Bad Science. If you have no track record then your results cannot be taken as seriously as those of an established experimenter. I would let Millikan and Hubble decide on how strong my parachute harness should be, in preference to Joe Bloggs from down the road. Wouldn't you?

I have a feeling that you may be tilting at windmills a bit, here. Do I also detect a bit of resentment of 'the establishment', too?

 

[TurtleMeister]

For a start, he was proved pretty well right after the event so, if he ditched some results he must have suspected that they were flawed in some way. That is excellent practice because there is no point insisting on the inclusion of suspect results; that would be Bad Science. When you put up a shelf and you do an average of three measurements of width, if one is well out, don't you re-measure? Only an eejit would include the patently dodgy one.

Of course the source of results needs to be taken into account or we'd be accepting all sorts of rubbish, which, again would be Bad Science. If you have no track record then your results cannot be taken as seriously as those of an established experimenter. I would let Millikan and Hubble decide on how strong my parachute harness should be, in preference to Joe Bloggs from down the road. Wouldn't you?

I have a feeling that you may be tilting at windmills a bit, here. Do I also detect a bit of resentment of 'the establishment', too?

I don't think you're understanding what happened. It has nothing to do with the inclusion of suspect results, it has to do with the ignoring of suspect results that do not fit the established data. Millikan won a nobel prize for his work. He and his experiment were well known. Subsequent experimenters who obtained these suspect results doubted themselves and their experiment rather than doubting Millikan's. I would probably be the same way. That's not a resentment of the establishment, it's more of a respect for it.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I don't think you're understanding what happened. It has nothing to do with the inclusion of suspect results, it has to do with the ignoring of suspect results that do not fit the established data. Millikan won a nobel prize for his work. He and his experiment were well known. Subsequent experimenters who obtained these suspect results doubted themselves and their experiment rather than doubting Millikan's. I would probably be the same way. That's not a resentment of the establishment, it's more of a respect for it.

But in a measurement exercise like Millikan's there must be all sorts of perturbations and it wouldn't be hard to get a result that was a multiple of e. I really don't think it's a good example of measurement being frigged to fit a theory. Building on some existing measurements as a check is often quite a good idea - and subsequently well justified in his case.

 

[Neandethal00]

And did you also missed the memo on the rest of the experiments I mentioned? Or do you consider those (such as the discovery of High-Tc superconductors) to also be not "discovered"? This is clearly a diversion to detract for the FACT that I've given sufficient examples to falsify your assertion.

And if you "earn part of your living using physics", you also should not make the comment that you made. So apply that same rule to you. Next time before you make baseless insulting comments, because some of them will be used against you.

Zz.

Most of you are getting me wrong. I do not question experiments that can be repeated again and again in different locations and be confirmed with minor differences.

I just don't get very so convinced with the results of experiments which are hard to repeat, which use one of a kind expensive equipments, experiments which are so delicate that exact repetition would be almost impossible. In those cases I noticed scientists pass data through very selective filters until data confirm the theory.

They may be right, they may be wrong, only time will tell. Hope they are right.

 

[Drakkith]

Most of you are getting me wrong. I do not question experiments that can be repeated again and again in different locations and be confirmed with minor differences.

I just don't get very so convinced with the results of experiments which are hard to repeat, which use one of a kind expensive equipments, experiments which are so delicate that exact repetition would be almost impossible. In those cases I noticed scientists pass data through very selective filters until data confirm the theory.

They may be right, they may be wrong, only time will tell. Hope they are right.

They don't pass data through filters until it confirms theory. The filters, or whatever they are actually doing, are necessary parts of the experiment to ensure useful data. Some examples are removing bias and dark current from astronomical images, removing known trends that are not part of the observation, etc. If after all their work, the data doesn't fit the theory then either the theory is wrong or the methods used to get the data are wrong. Luckily I know of very few things that are one of a kind observations and such.

 

[TurtleMeister]

But in a measurement exercise like Millikan's there must be all sorts of perturbations and it wouldn't be hard to get a result that was a multiple of e. I really don't think it's a good example of measurement being frigged to fit a theory. Building on some existing measurements as a check is often quite a good idea - and subsequently well justified in his case.

emphasis mine

So are you saying that it is a good idea to "adjust" your experimental results to better fit with previous established results? That is what seems to have happened with the oil drop experiments. I guess it could have been coincidence. But what are the odds?

 

[PaulS1950]

Back to the topic...
Tesla discovered AC current, the AC motor, AC generator, radio, and fully demonstrated a modulation device that caused a small earthquake in Brookland.
As to why there is no written material, the fact that the FBI confiscated all of his paperwork upon his death is a material and well published fact.

Do I think he was some kind of "superhuman" who outweighs any other person? NO! I do think he had a way of looking beyond what was "logical" for his time and go beyond the accepted reality of the moment. He did his best to stay away from producing weapons - like his "death ray" and the "tremor generator" that he did publicly test. Whether he was trying to find a cause or a fix for earthquakes was never revealed but he never demonstrated a desire to build weapons - though he recognized that some of his discoveries had weapons potential.
When I first heard about particle weapons I thought about Tesla's death ray and wondered if it was a derivative of his work... I doubt it but it may be possible.
Whatever and whoever he was, he should not be dismissed as a lucky crackpot who was unimportant to the history of the world. Marconi could never have made his radio without the groundwork and patents that he stole from Tesla - proven in court. Tesla is credited with the patents on Marconi's work.
Was Tesla's "death ray" an electron gun, a laser or a particle projection device? We don't know because his work has never, in its entirety, been released to the public.

Paul

 

[sophiecentaur]

You can't beat a good conspiracy.

 

[zonova]

I am really wanting to write out a long post, i simply don't have the time at the moment. However, simply calling something a conspiracy doesn't mean it's not true. Am i wrong for agreeing with Paul? I think it sounds correct. In the end, I'm just wanting to give respect to an amazing engineer and scientist.

And say what you want, i still think he beats Einstein ;D

 

[TurtleMeister]

Back to the topic...

It's good to try and keep a thread on topic, but I'm wondering if this one may be the exception.

 

[Drakkith]

Whatever and whoever he was, he should not be dismissed as a lucky crackpot who was unimportant to the history of the world.

I don't believe anyone is claiming him to be a lucky crackpot. He was a very good engineer/scientist that made many useful contributions.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I am really wanting to write out a long post, i simply don't have the time at the moment. However, simply calling something a conspiracy doesn't mean it's not true. Am i wrong for agreeing with Paul? I think it sounds correct. In the end, I'm just wanting to give respect to an amazing engineer and scientist.

And say what you want, i still think he beats Einstein ;D

Bringing in the CIA and other intellectual 'thieves' is a pretty strong hint at a mysterious conspiracy. I can understand how Marconi could have 'pinched' a basic idea but the fact was that he actually produced a large number of of successful projects fully justifies him. Engineers and Scientists don't do their work in isolation; they ingest ideas from elsewhere and synthesise with them. It's the guy who produces the tangible and properly documented results that deserves the real credit for engineering a system.
As far as the CIA is concerned, you'd need to suggest a pretty good motive for their reputed interference before the idea could hold water.
In what respect does Tesla "beat" Einstein? You could also say that Robin Hood beats Einstein because of his reputed social behaviour. If Tesla's ideas really were up to much then why don't we find them in textbooks? What did Einstein have to do (greasing palms??) to make his legacy stick so well? Perhaps he was just a lot better at what he did.

I am always aware of a suspicious lack of Maths in any of the readily available quotes of Tesla. They all seem to be very much arm waving and based on very sketchy data. If that ain't Bad Science then I don't know what is.

 

[Neandethal00]

Please do not turn main stream science into
Main Stream Media.

Our way or no way.

 

[zonova]

Tesla did document his work, at least in the form of patents.

Not sure about the CIA thing, however I'm pretty sure that it's a fact that they took up all of his work documents at his death.

Why don't we find Tesla in textbooks? That's a great question, and i have no idea why. I think he's certainly better than Edison, and yet you find him in many textbooks. Another reason that Einstain is in so many textbooks is because what Tesla did wasn't really physics. There really wasn't anything to teach. You simply have the designs for his inventions through his patents, what more do you need? Einstein did physics, which is something that is taught much more often. His concepts of relativity appear in a lot of textbooks.

Why does Einsteins legacy stick so well? Mostly because of the immense popularity he gained through WW2. He's is mostly known as the guy that created the atom bomb which ended the war. That is what made him famous to everyone on earth. It's not because he did anything "better". That's not to say that Einstein didn't add greatly to our understanding of physics, etc. He certainly did.

 

[gmax137]

...Why does Einsteins legacy stick so well? Mostly because of the immense popularity he gained through WW2. He's is mostly known as the guy that created the atom bomb which ended the war. That is what made him famous to everyone on earth...

where did you get this idea?

 

[zonova]

where did you get this idea?

I think it holds true for anyone that isn't a "physics guy", so like the average person. Obviously it's different in forums like this one, since this is a physics forum :P

 

[ZapperZ]

It appears that this thread is no longer a discussion on physics. It is now done.

Zz.