/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2455242]

>When he was 81, Tesla stated he had completed a "dynamic theory of gravity". He stated that it was "worked out in all details" and that he hoped to soon give it to the world. The theory was never published.

Why not? And what if he's right and everyone else is wrong?

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.2455252]

Tesla said something crazy on a regular basis.

[Anonymous No.2455260]

Watch Fermat's Room, the young mathematician pulls this same bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2455264]

>>2455252
Go to bed, Edison

[Anonymous No.2455274]

>>2455264

[Anonymous No.2455292]

Is it normal for geniuses to make up accomplishments? Because I do that shit all the time. I guess I'm on the path to success.

[Anonymous No.2455295]

>>2455242
The math for non-Tesla gravity matches real-world observations.

It's more likely Tesla was just being his usual crackpot self.

[Anonymous No.2455299]

Unless I'm wrong, Einstein made similar claims a short while before his death.

[Anonymous No.2455300]

>>2455292
No, just Tesla.

And Hawkings if Futurama and The Simpsons have taught me anything.

[Anonymous No.2455302]

>>2455295
You know that back when GR was written, Newtonian gravitation explained all observations perfectly, right?

[i- !LoVeEKpnh2 No.2455310]

>>2455302
orly

[Scientist No.2455312]

>>2455302
Well, someone remind me about the photo-electric effect again? That was known earlier than GR, right?

Also all astrophysics and models of stellar evolution, galaxy evolution, etc.

[Scientist No.2455314]

>>2455312
Not that I'm trying to imply GR explains photoelectric effect. I was just being a smart ass.

[Anonymous No.2455318]

>>2455302
Really, so when a new theory was proposed people said "Well ok, but we have this and it works, thank anyway Einstein"? Huh, learn some knew history every... waitaminute...

[Anonymous No.2455319]

>>2455310
>work started on GR: 1907
>published the field equations: 1915
>first experimental proof of GR: 1919

I guess expecting tripfags to know history is a bit too much.

[Anonymous No.2455325]

Scientists could accurately predict the motions of the planets long before they knew about the heliocentric solar system.

It's quite possible that general relativity is based on faulty assumptions, and while we can observe and predict what we believe to be true, it doesn't mean that the science is right.

But it's the best we have to go on, just like any generation.

[Scientist No.2455333]

>>2455319
That's different. I agree that the first good proof was after the invention of the model. However, as I anally pointed out earlier, there were plenty of unexplained phenomena which were known at the time and unexplained, and moreover could be explained through GR, but not good enough to constitute a scientific proof.

[Anonymous No.2455335]

>>2455319
>Lack of proof for new theory means people hadn't found any flaws in the old theory

Yeah because it's not like Lorentz Transformation weren't, initially, a completely ad hoc attempt to maintain the luminiferous aether.

[Scientist No.2455336]

>>2455325
This potentially demonstrates a lack of understanding of science.

There is no "right" beyond "Does it make accurate falsifiable predictions?". In that sense, you're dead wrong.

However, this will lead to an infinite number of theories which are all "right". That's where Occam's Razor comes in. In that sense, you are right.

Still, be careful not to dismiss a theory as "wrong" just because it's too complex when it offers the right predictions.

[Anonymous No.2455338]

>>2455252
>>2455274
What was the crazy things Tesla told, anyway? The only crzay stuff I know he said was his claim that Mars was sending Radio-wave, which happened to be true, has every object actually emit infrared electrowave which happened to be what Tesla was capting.

But back then no one knew that yet and he was turned fool for his claims, despite being real.

Now, except for the mars thing, what crazy other stuff did he said?

[Anonymous No.2455341]

>>2455333
There are plenty of phenomena that can't be explained by GR now, either. Sure, sure, dark matter and shit. Makes as much sense as deferents and epicycles.

[Anonymous No.2455355]

>>2455341
>dark matter
Dark matter reminds me a lot of every time a reality-shattering discovery was made. There's always an "unknown quantity" that proves to be the undoing of the accepted understanding of science. Dark matter will be Einstein's undoing.

[Scientist No.2455361]

>>2455341
I tend to agree. Guess we'll see, at least I hope we'll see a better theory come out of modern physics. "Dark matter must exist because our equations don't match observation!".

First, it's my understanding that it's a little more than just that, that we actually have some more confirming evidence.

However, note another important problem in science. While falsifiability is an absolute requirement of science, that a theory can make predictions which can be shown right or wrong, determining when something has been falsified is a very tricky task. This is where Occam's Razor comes in.

For example, before we discovered Neptune, we knew that the orbit of Uranus did not match expectations of Newton's mechanics. Did we throw out Newton's mechanics in this case? No. We postulated another as of yet unobserved planet. We later found it exactly where we predicted it to be, and called it Neptune.

[Anonymous No.2455369]

>>2455341
And, when someone comes along with a theory that explains those holes, and everything else we already have evidence for, we'll use that one. Are you trying to suggest Tesla had the instruments required to measure the "dark x"?

>>2455361
"Dark matter" is just the name for "stuff we can measure gravitationally but reflects no observable light".

"Dark Energy" on the other hand is wtf. It's almost like the universe decided it was going to be made out of anti-gravity.

[Scientist No.2455373]

>>2455369
>"Dark matter" is just the name for "stuff we can measure gravitationally but reflects no observable light".
Just like Neptune before it was observed.

[Anonymous No.2455375]

>>2455369
>Are you trying to suggest Tesla had the instruments required to measure the "dark x"?

I'm saying his theory might have explained behaviours that GR fails to explain. We'll never know.

[Anonymous No.2455379]

ofcourse GR is wrong because time is not space.

[Anonymous No.2455382]

>>2455369
There is n experiment they are working on on the CERN to create a packet big enough of Anti-mater to see if is is actually acting on Anti-gravity.

One came up with a model where Anti-gravity for Anti-matter work, anyway, and it explain why the universe look like a big holed cheese (anti-mater are filling the holes)

[Scientist No.2455386]

>>2455379
Not sure if you were dropped on your head as a baby or not. Were you?

[Anonymous No.2455406]

>>2455373
Yes, exactly.

>>2455382
Anti-matter just has opposite charge, it
>One came up with a model where Anti-gravity for Anti-matter work
you wouldn't have a source for this would you?

[Scientist No.2455414]

>>2455406
Anti-matter is not the exact same thing but with opposite charge. Google CPT symmetry.

The first guy is still likely full of shit though.

[Anonymous No.2455424]

>>2455242
>Implying an engineer knows anything about fundemental physics

Becuase he was just an engineer, the scientific community dismissed his claims as trolling

[Anonymous No.2455430]

>>2455406
>>2455414
The theory is from Gabriel Chardin The new director of the CNRS (an not the CERN)

[Anonymous No.2455431]

>>2455424
GOOD

[Anonymous No.2455435]

>>2455414
>Google CPT symmetry
Well, there you go.
Still Anti-matter still has equal rather than inverse mass, so gravity will have the same effect.

[Scientist No.2455439]

>>2455435
As far as we know, true.

Have we actually measured it? It could be completely off, or just off by a little?

[Anonymous No.2455440]

>>2455430
>>2455382
And the experiment in question is the AEGIS one:
http://aegis.web.cern.ch/aegis/home.html

[Anonymous No.2455444]

>>2455439
>Have we actually measured it?

Yes

[Scientist No.2455450]

>>2455440
>>2455444
>>2455447
Cool beans. Learn something everyday.

[Anonymous No.2455449]

>>2455424
That engineer had more science in his toys-made-out of boredome than any science scientists have made.

[Anonymous No.2455447]

>>2455439
See >>2455440
One of the purpose of the AEGIS experiment is actually to measure how gravity interact with Anti-matter exactly.

[Anonymous No.2455451]

>>2455444
Actually, not yes. Or at least, not directly. The AEGIS experiment is set to measure the effect of gravity on Antimatter with a 1% precision.

[Anonymous No.2455455]

>>2455440
The experiment was proposed, but never accepted. So far there are no indications that it will even be done.

[Anonymous No.2455460]

>>2455455
Too bad, directly observing the effect of gravity on a pack of antimatter sounded kind of cool

[Anonymous No.2455465]

>>2455449
Tesla never actually made an contribution to science. All his shit was already explained in the Maxwell equations.

[Anonymous No.2455469]

>>2455460
It is cool, but fucking pointless.

[Scientist No.2455472]

>>2455469
I don't think it's pointless. The results if confirming would be nice for the theory, and if they were not confirming would be of enormous interest.

[Anonymous No.2455474]

>>2455465

[Anonymous No.2455479]

Tesla liked his mad scientist image and would often put out exaggerated stories or outright lies about his experiments to enhance that portrayal. That's not saying he didn't do anything worthwhile however.

[Anonymous No.2455480]

>>2455469
In that case the Large Hadron Colider is pointless too, seeing that its primary purpose is to simply confirm most of the Quantum theories and Equations.

[Anonymous No.2455483]

>>2455472
There are much more important theories that need confirming. AGEIS is shit teir in comparision.

[Anonymous No.2455488]

>>2455480
>>2455480
>simply confirm most of the Quantum theories and Equations

You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.2455512]

He also said he caused the tunguska explosion with his death ray

[Anonymous No.2455534]

>>2455302
Apart from aether drift, or lack there of.