[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 18 KB, 240x320, tesla.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4869598 No.4869598 [Reply] [Original]

So I just read about this nigger's Dynamic Theory of Gravity and it makes a fuckton more sense to me than Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Everything I thought I knew about gravitational forces has been torn to shreds. Opinions?

>> No.4869605

>Opinions

calling someone a nigger sound foolish to everyone but you

>> No.4869612

I've never read it, what are the fundamentals of it? How does it model gravity?

>> No.4869613

This is how I have come to understand Tesla's theory.

>Gravity is not a warping of space-time, rather it is the universal attraction of matter due to electromagnetic properties that all matter shares

>Instead of bodies being moving towards each other statically through a warped field, bodies in fact attract each other through dynamic forces

>The warping of space-time in and of itself is a fabrication because space, having no properties cannot be warped and time, being a human construct doesn't really exist at all

>Every mathematical conjecture in support of his theory that Tesla wrote down has been classified by the Government

>mfw

>> No.4869619 [DELETED] 

>>4869613

see
>>4869612

>> No.4869622

just report the thread and move along folks

>> No.4869625

>>4869605

In this case it's a term of endearment.

>> No.4869626

>>4869613
I'm that interested in attacks on relativity, I'm interested in the actual mathematical descriptions of his own.

Can you give an example problem worked out in tesla dynamics? Also, can you explain more about the classification thing?

>> No.4869628

Either way, he never published his conclusion to his theory. He died soon before he had the chance.

Still a true genius.

>> No.4869629
File: 17 KB, 247x239, 1341669770886.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4869629

>>4869613
Classified by the government? Source please

>> No.4869632

Under that system, why are inertial mass and gravitational mass identical?

>> No.4869634

>>4869598
>Every mathematical conjecture in support of his theory that Tesla wrote down has been classified by the Government
I fucking knew it. Typical gubment keeping the best gravity for themselves and making us live in this relativistic bullshit

>> No.4869636

>>4869622

This is my first time posting on /sci/.

Please let me know if I have broken any unspoken rules.

>> No.4869638

>>4869628
Theoretical descriptions in physics don't have "conclusions," they have starting principles and the rest of the work is extending that to different situations.

>> No.4869641

>>4869636
Tesla is very popular amongst the uneducated (and consequently, trolls) and very unpopular amongst people with the education to know he really was not as special as his modern narrative claims. People assume you're trolling.

>> No.4869642

>>4869638

Good point, it's not a law after all.

>> No.4869650

>>4869628

OP here, from what I've come to understand this is pretty much why none of his theory support is available. He died before it was published. Much of what is known is based on a prepared statement he released in 1937 critiquing the Theory of Relativity.

>> No.4869657

>>4869650

I don't think you understand how theoretical physics operates. If he had had any progress that could be known to be true it would be in the form of a mathematical description, this would be what we'd test to see its value. If he did not have a consistent mathematical description, then there is no claim to have a consistent theory. Physics stopped being intuition-based and qualitative centuries ago.

>> No.4869672

>>4869657

He was preparing to publish a fleshed-out and mathematically sound theory, and was actually performing physical experiments based upon it (unlike Einstein), but died before publishing his final report.

>> No.4869670

>>4869641
Now now, don't be too harsh to Tesla, while the unwashed masses do attribute him an oddly mythic stature as a cryptic mad genius, some sole visionary in a dark world or some such, which is certainly a vast exaggeration at the very least, he most certainly was skilled in his intuition and understanding of wave properties, oscillations, resonance, etc. and clearly did impressive work with them especially with regard to electromagnetism.

However he was all his life charitably describable as eccentric, though less charitable descriptions may be more apt, and later in life quite prone to break downs and his neuroses aggravated in one form or another.

He did not create a death ray, nor did he create a grand unified theory, but he was a certainly talented within his purview.

>> No.4869676

>>4869657

I mean, this is obviously the reason that Einstein's theory is accepted and not Tesla's, but it's still interesting to think about there being a theory out there that could possibly trump Mr. Einstein's.

>> No.4869682

>>4869672
Or his results all turned out to disprove his conjecture and so he never published them.

>> No.4869686

>>4869641
opinion city

you live in it

>> No.4869690

>>4869682

Well his published statement asserted that he was prepared to reveal his theory to the world, which to me implies his experiments had gone well.

>> No.4869694

>>4869672
How do you know this if he died without publishing it? It's typical conspiracy theorist nonsense.
Even if it's true, we'll never know if his theory is sensible because we've never seen the details! If it really does purport that gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon, why does it affect particles without electromagnetic charge?

>> No.4869695

>>4869690
The man was aging and suffering a dire lack of funding and poor mental health. He'd have said anything.

>> No.4869700

>makes sense
If it makes sense or not is completely irrelevant. And how come we can use the stuff you've now laid behind you to predict all the planets positions 50 000 years into the future with extreme precision but not the stuff you think is way cooler than that
It is obvious that you don't know how science works or have any relevant education to physics.
>>>/x/

>> No.4869702

>>4869694
The Higgs Boson is the only elementary particle in the standard model that has a mass but no electical charge.

>> No.4869707
File: 18 KB, 225x288, 1341888830721.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4869707

>Implying teslas dynamic gravity theory can account for time dialation, black holes, gravitational lensing, light deflection and gravitational time delay, orbital effects and the relativity of direction, geodetic precession and frame dragging.

>> No.4869709

>>4869700

You're right, I don't have much formal physics education. But I was hoping I would come here and find constructive information and opinions on something I was interested in, not pretentious assholes talking down to me.

Fuck you, man.

>> No.4869727

>>4869672
>>4869676

No, I don't think you understand. There *IS* no theory without a mathematical model, the mathematical model *is* the theory. I know that in popsci (I really hope that doesn't sound condescending, I'm not sure how else to work it) there's this story that goes on a lot about how "einstein imagined what it would be like to go at the speed of light, then he thought about what goes on near planets, then he thought..." and then there's some more qualitative, idea "supposin`"s and then later and then poof there's a theory, but that's just not how physics works nor is it how it has worked for well over a century.

You suppose that some set of phenomena is described by some mathematical principles (these days the interesting work that gets reported in the media is usually just research teams trying some lie algebra's correspondence to reality), then you check it.

An experiment's role is to see if the mathematical model does indeed hold. There are no theories that are not mathematical.
That's all true in general, mind you. More directly, if he is trying to dismiss a physics theory because it does not match his intuition and is instead trying to substitute in his own ideas based on what "feels right," then he's making the same mistake many high schoolers do. The universe is not how we evolved to instinctively perceive it, deal with it.

Also more directly, electrodynamic field theories of gravity simply do not work. They were plausible in the 1900s but not anymore. Also, as someone else pointed out his theory would be incapable of explaining inertia. Also, it would mean that GPSes would not work. Please observe that they do.

>> No.4869733

>>4869709

I'm this guy >>4869727 and the obvious predecessors, but not >>4869700 . We're not all this impatient, but I realize my tone might sound condescending as well. That's just because I'm not sure how else to phrase things, please don't abandon the thread

>> No.4869738

>>4869709

You're better off reading than coming /sci Anon.

Sorry you had to find this out the hard way.

>> No.4869740

>>4869709
If you tell us more about your background it will be easier to explain things to you. I for one initially thought you must at least be an upper level undergrad to understand a fully fleshed out field theory, prior to googling around and realizing the only "tesla gravity" stuff was conspiracy theories and qualitative descriptions- no offense, that's just how it actually is.

>> No.4869750

>>4869709
the reason you get negative replies is because you come in here with your obvious lack of knowledge and start saying you think a dude from last century can challenge one of the most tested and fundamental cornerstones of modern physics because you think so.

What you could have done was come in and say "I know pretty much nothing about gravitational theory but I'm curious about it, can you point me to some suggested reading?"

>> No.4869756

>>4869750
and if starting at the bottom with the basics isn't "cool" enough for you then science isn't for you

>> No.4869764
File: 47 KB, 590x572, feels-bad-man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4869764

>>4869727
>>4869740


Sorry, I guess I should have referred to this as an "idea" and not a "theory." Nevertheless it's my impression that there is almost none if any mathematical publication by Tesla in support of his theory.

So, maybe there's not really much to discuss anyway.

>> No.4869772

>>4869605
>someone said a slightly politically incorrect word

Better disregard everything he says and not answer his question.

>> No.4869774

>>4869772
and suppress everything he ever published too, maaaaan

>> No.4869776

>>4869764
The semantics don't matter. The thing is that it's ridiculously easy to come up with an "idea" about the natural world and it's meaningless to do so. We know that our basic intuitions about the world are not good guides, so judging a qualitative "idea" by its intuitive appeal is not a fruitful way to explore the universe.

And just to throw this out there because I started to write a bit about how relativity IS strange but that means little because the things it actually predicts are true and just as strange- I'm suspect that, reading Tesla's criticisms, much of his dislike for relativity was based on his own mathematical failings, for instance his insistence that "space can't be curved!!!!"

>> No.4869778

>>4869750

Alright, I wasn't saying Einstein's theory is bullshit, I was merely trying to grab attention by saying that there is a contrasting idea proposed by a man who had the capacity to support it had he not died first, and was wondering if anyone knew anything more.

Now I know. Thanks.

>> No.4869781

There is zero evidence his theory was anything more than him boasting. He was jealous of Einstein's fame, we all know he was a brilliant man but he was an ego maniac. He made up a lot of shit and this is one example.
There was never a technical mechanism published nor any mathematical forms. All we have is the word of a man who also claimed he invented free energy and a death ray.

>> No.4869784

>>4869776

My point was that Tesla's idea was more than just intuitive and was supported by documents that have, for whatever reason, never been made available to the viewing public.

That being said, this thread has outlived its usefulness. Please leave.

>> No.4869785

>>4869670
I don't think I was that harsh actually, though I agree most of /sci/ is. That said, his "madness" is actually part of what I dislike about his modern story. Yes he was odd, but he was not some tortured savant like people talk about him today. Just reading these attacks on Einstein show he was concerned with base things like prestige and wealth, and that he communicated in a thoroughly normal and sane manner.

I blame a lot of this on cracked describing his affair with einstein as TALENTLESS EVIL BUSINESS MOGUL TRICKS AND ABUSES BRILLIANT AUTISTIC ASCETIC

>> No.4869792

>>4869785

Fuck, Edison*
>>4869784

There is no space between "guesses based on intuition" and mathematical form. Again more particularly, we know he said he had a dynamic field theory of gravity. That is the entirety of what a qualitative description could encompass, anything else would concern which operators act on the system, boundary conditions, and other mathematical objects.

That said, to take the obvious low point: how can you simultaneously be so sure this evidence exists and that no one's ever seen it because it was suppressed?

I don't think anyone competent here is concerned with trying to disprove his theory, because it's obviously false as all DFT's of gravity must be for a huge number of reasons (many of which Tesla would not have known and which I can get into if you're). What we do want to see though is the breadth of the theory as you said you have seen it. Even a link would be fine. We, or at least I, really are benevolent here.

>> No.4869797

>>4869690
He had a nasty habit of making extravagant claims, I wouldn't look to deeply into it.
>>4869781
after all the credit he had stolen from his work, I'd want attention too

>> No.4869802

>>4869778
No, he didn't have the capacity to single-handedly turn physics 2012 on it's head. the knowledge available to him at the time wouldn't even earn him a pass in university physics today. No matter how smart he was the knowledge simply wasn't there for him. Same goes for Einstein, anything he wrote before his death would be relevant today

>> No.4869803

>>4869797

http://peswiki.com/energy/PowerPedia:Tesla's_Dynamic_Theory_of_Gravity

This is the most comprehensive aggregation of Tesla's broken theory that I found after limited searching.

>> No.4869805

>>4869802
would NOT be relevant today

>> No.4869806

>>4869797
You would try to gain fame by attacking the most famous physicist in the world? He even claimed relativity was formulated 200 years ago, which is false.
Regardless of whether or not you sympathise it's plain and simple that he had a vested interest and a record of lies. His word is not trustworthy.

>> No.4869807

>>4869803
Reading now, jesus christ this site could not be more transparently blinded by bias.

>> No.4869814
File: 453 KB, 800x998, Einstein-Sockless.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4869814

Einstein's theory is neither complete nor the final word on mathematically modelling the world. Einstein would have been the first in line to subscribe to that.

BUT:
1) Einstein's theory (both Special and General Relativity) are well tested and are common physical knowledge as of today (just like older, more limited theories like Newtonian mechanics and what not). Relativistic principles even come to bear in everyday applications, for example for GPS to work the space-time warp from earth's gravity has to be taken into account.

2) Coming up with some obscure "theory" by Tesla that has never been published, let alone been tested or peer-reviewed (and probably never existed) is ridiculous and just another case of some conspiracy-crackpot's attention whoreing. Tesla wasn't even close to being a trained theoretical physicist and most certainly had no privileged knowledge about gravity or space-time.

So my suggestion for OP would be:

GO AND GET FUCKED BY WILHELM REICH IN HELL

>> No.4869817

OP, Tesla explicitly denied the principles that make GPSes and nuclear bombs work (two very different consequences of relativity). Neither one is explainable in a field/aether interaction model.

>> No.4869820

>>4869613

>The warping of space-time in and of itself is a fabrication because space, having no properties cannot be warped and time, being a human construct doesn't really exist at all

I'l never understand this objection. Sure, we don't know what space-time is made of, but we're not at that stage yet. We're just saying "suppose space and time were geometry, and suppose that geometry could change" and going with it, and seeing where it leads us.

>> No.4869828

>>4869820
It's not even that much, it's really saying "suppose the geometry is not the euclidean one we simply assumed for no concrete reason."

>> No.4869827

>>4869803
>which Tesla called "primary solar rays" (and lead to modern concept of cosmic rays)
Uncited bullcrap. It's not referenced there is no way of telling what came from tesla and what was "interpreted".

Also Telsa's theory involves the Aether, it would not be compatible with QED. even if it was better than relativity it would be based on a flawed understanding of the force he attributes gravity to. This would not be an ultimate theory, it would have the same problems relativity has at small scales. It isn't a grand unified theory as some have suggested (a GUT actually dosen't involve gravity but instead EM and the nuclear forces, a theory of everything involves gravity but at the time this was called unified field theory as it didn't involve the undiscovered nuclear forces). Even if we believe Tesla made this theory it dosen't appear to be quantum and so would be flawed.

>> No.4869831

>>4869827
Aether field theories aren't incompatible with QED as far as I know, and even if they were we know that some details of QED will be lost in its extension to large scales.

>> No.4869832

OP here. Like I said, the fact that I am nowhere close to a physicist in addition to it being my first time posting on /sci/ goes to show that I am and will probably remain very ignorant to the implications my post made.

Also, a lot of people took it a lot more seriously than I intended it to be in the first place.

So, if you guys are having fun without me then I'm heading out and probably never coming back. See you, /sci/, it's been real. I guess.

>> No.4869834

>>4869827

I'm pretty sure QED works fine with aether. It's not even aware of relativistic considerations.

>> No.4869863

>>4869831
Yes but if you used classical electrodynamics you would find the theory breaks down on small scales like relativity. It would be flawed.

>>4869834
Do you have a citation, I'm interested not being a dick but when you google aether you get pseudoscience nonsense? But regardless a quote from the webpage:
>Tesla said that electromagnetic radiation was propagated, like sound waves in the ether.
Sound waves are continuous, his theory would not have been quantum so just as flawed as GR.

>> No.4869867

>>4869863
Do you have a citation?* I'm interested and* not being a dick but when you google aether you get pseudoscience nonsense.*

>> No.4869881

>>4869863

I just meant that QED is a non-relativistic theory. It doesn't give a damn HOW light is propagated. It operates most naturally on ordinary Galilean space, no relativity needed.

>> No.4869934

>>4869863
I'm not sure what you get when you google, but modern theoretical descriptions of some phenomena or another reminiscent of aether theories do pop up pretty frequently in physics, though like with time travel ("closed timelike loops curves") it's usually not referred to as such except maybe a brief note in the comments section of the write-up. You can describe aether waves as quantum though, that should be obvious- the whole project of QED is quantizing waves.