Talk:Dynamic theory of gravity/Archive 1

Older stuff
[The second article] Looks like bullshit to me. The article itself is too incoherent to understand. The first reference link looks one of those crackpot articles that get posted to arXiv.org from time to time (the author is from the "Institute of Basic Research", but what the heck is that?); the second reference is an excerpt from "Occult Ether Physics"; and the third link is basically irrelevant. -- CYD


 * "[The second article] Looks like bullshit to" you? Nice attack ... typical of psuedoskepticism ...
 * "The article itself is too incoherent to understand"? Any particular criticism? or just you "generalized impression"?
 * first reference "crackpot articles"? that a "nice" psuedo[skeptical attack on the article ...
 * "posted to arXiv.org"? arXiv is a good site ... sorry to inform you ...
 * "Institute of Basic Research", what the heck is that? ummm, just from the name, it about researching basic concepts (reconfirmation of them) ... mabey more info is out ther on them ...
 * second reference ... "Occult Ether Physics"? A site exposing the "hidden" truth or "secret" knowledge (i.e., the literaly meaning of "occult") of the explaination of Tesla's "luminiferous aether" (ie., the behaviour and interactions of the four fundemental forces).
 * Third link "irrelevant"? YMMV on that ... as the FOIA has not produced any of these papers (being "lost" in the Office of alien affairs (ot which his personal effect should not have been sent to)) ... and, it's relevant to the article ...
 * sincerely, JDR
 * as a postscript, I've merged the 2 articles some time ago ...


 * I have added a reputable article ahead of the disputed article. I agree that the [second] article is a load of speculation and interpretation of widely scattered suggestions that have been read into what little Tesla said about his theory.  Personally I think the author of the second article has confused a lot of Tesla's other work as all that Tesla said was that he had worked out his theory.  He did not say he had written it down.  From his early life he was of a habit of working things out in his mind before committing them to paper.  This may be what Tesla did with his theory of gravitation as well. If that is the case it is difficult to see how the [second] article can purport to be a record of his theory, as there was no record of it in the first place.  Since Einstein only published his theory of General Reletivity in 1915 and Tesla only criticised it in 1937, it is difficult to understand why Tesla first began to developed his theory in 1893, unless he is building on his electrical work.  For Tesla to not say anything for 22 years after Einstein proposed his theory is contrary to Tesla's egocentric personality; which indicates that Tesla's dynamic theory of gravitation is a much later development and would be distinct from earlier work.  As Tesla was also working on Lightning, Geoelectrical Energy Phenomena, Wireless Energy Transmission, communication with other worlds and a "Teleforce" (plasma beam?) weapon at the same time, it is understandable that things have become mixed up by Occultist with their own adgendas. The concepts of an "aether" or "medium" is not something that Tesla would have used in his own theories as he would have expressed this as a "field of force" instead - and it would have been expressed mathematically too.  Please keep in mind that Tesla was the foremost theoretician and researcher of his time in the propagation of electromagnetic energy and he, not Marconi, invented radio, according to the US High Court in 1943. The article also discusses a lot of other stuff that Tesla was working on that is not related to gravitation.  Reading the source articles, the original author has paraphrased Tesla's work.  Whether the meaning has been retained or changed is not clear, as the source material is not quoted or refered to on a way that allows the reader to judge.  I am tempted to remove the second article completely. -- kiwiinapanic 05:51, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * "added a "reputable" article"? I've merged them a bit ago...
 * "disputed article"? It was noted that way in the intital edit ...
 * "the [second] article is a load of speculation and interpretation of widely scattered suggestions that have been read into what little Tesla said about his theory''"? YMMV on that ...
 * "Personally [you] think [the] article confuses Tesla's work"? YMMV on that ...
 * "as all that Tesla said was that he had worked out his theory"? I believe he said that he had finished the DTG near his death ... (I'll see if I can dig up a ref to this)
 * "He did not say he had written it down"? IIRC, he said he had worked it out ... that may mean that he had written it down, though he did do alot of "work" mentally before putting down anything ...
 * "From his early life he was of a habit of working things out in his mind before committing them to paper" ... yes he did ...
 * "''This may be what Tesla did with his theory of gravitation as well" ... may have, may not have ...
 * "If that is the case it is difficult to see how the [...] article can purport to be a record of his theory" .... yes if that is the case ... but that is questionable, he could have written it down (and the article is not just about his intial theory, but it's extensions and generalization of other to the modern day (thankfully, theories increment and a theory's creator propositions are not the exact same always the same as the one that exist today [i.e., evolutionists have improved on the Darwin's initial theory]) ...
 * "as there was no record of it in the first place"? there are references to it (and others have extended it) ....
 * "Since Einstein only published his theory of General Reletivity in 1915 and Tesla only criticised it in 1937, it is difficult to understand why Tesla first began to developed his theory in 1893, unless he is building on his electrical work"? He was ... from the variou writings that i've seen ...
 * For Tesla to not say anything for 22 years after Einstein proposed his theory is contrary to Tesla's egocentric personality"? What? woh, that's patently false ... nice attack on him, but Tesla was far from "egocentric" ... otherwise people like Mark Twain would doubtlessly not have been friends with him (Twain was renowned for not tolerating pompous asses)...
 * "Tesla's dynamic theory of gravitation is a much later development"? yes it is a later development ... "and would be distinct from earlier work"? um no ... it'd more likely be a clumination of his life work ....
 * Tesla, beside formulating this theory, was also working on Lightning, Geoelectrical Energy Phenomena, Wireless Energy Transmission, transcieving signals with other worlds and "Teleforce" (a theory that is the basis for a type of "death ray" plasma beam (among other things)).
 * "understandable that things [...] become mixed up by Occultist with their own adgendas"? and what precisely is that "agenda"? to promote science's progression? to reveal hidden truth from or secret knowledge (i.e., the literaly meaning of "occult")? that's a "bad" thing? YMMV on that ...
 * "concepts of an "aether" or "medium" is not something that Tesla would have used in his own theories"? ... that is falacious ... he indeed referred to them through his life's works ... to both the "aether" and the "mediums" ... appearantly you have not read enough of his patents nor his writings ...
 * "as he would have expressed this as a "field of force" instead? ... he did express things in "field", but that isn't what the scant details expose for the complete generalization ... only part of it ...
 * "expressed mathematically"? mabey ... but he would as likely set up a non-mathematically model ... he was a mathematician, but describe many things in non-mathematical terms ...
 * "Tesla was the foremost theoretician"? Umm, Tesla was an excellent experimentalist (understanding that conjecture (i.e., theory) without experimentation is an adventure into imagination) ... "and researcher"? yes ... and not just his "propagation of electromagnetic energy" but many other topics ... and he, not Marconi, did invented radio  becuase of existing prior works, the US High Court in 1943 just recognized this (for thier own gain, I might add ... as they neglected to do this before (again for thier own gain)).
 * "Discusses a lot of other stuff that Tesla was working on that is not related to gravitation"? the article is inclusive ... as it is interrelated ...
 * "paraphrased Tesla's work"? not exactly ... yes it is based off sources from tesla's work but there are other references (ppl who continued this avenue of research) that extends and generalizes it ...
 * "meaning [...] retained"? YMMV on that ....
 * "source material is not quoted or refered"? There are references link in the article (and I'll be adding more to them as time permits) ... the reader can judge it for what it's worth now (and CYD appearantly has)...
 * "tempted to remove"? it's been merged some time ago ....
 * Sincerely, JDR

Removal
Removed these two articles from the references.


 * Van Vlaenderen, Koen J., "A generalisation of classical electrodynamics for the prediction of scalar field effects" [arxiv.org]

This has nothing to do with Tesla's theories on gravity. The article says some really nice things about Tesla, but was refering to Tesla's work in electromagnetism. The physics in the article is standard EM and not in any way exotic.


 * Tesla's work in electromagnetism is the _foundation_ to the Dynamic theory of gravity proposed by Tesla.


 * Faraggi, Alon E., "Anthropics versus determinism in quantum gravity, Phase-space duality". Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, England. [arxiv.org]

I have no idea what this article has to do with Tesla's theories. It's a pretty standard article (and interesting) on quantum gravity.


 * Roadrunner, if you have "no idea" why did you remove it? but you removed it anyways? nice ....
 * The "Phase-space duality" is the important part (if you noticed that was in the citation, not just that article title) ...
 * I reinserted them both .... JDR

wrong?

 * That there was anything new or startling about the idea of gravitation as a field effect is simply wrong. Of course these days it is an intense focus of theoretical activity, but it has been a common place notion for a long time. The business of the photoelectric effect was removed, since that has more to do with quantum mechanics. Gene Ward Smith 20:10, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * "That there was anything new or startling about the idea of gravitation as a field effect is simply wrong"? Please explain as I don't quite believe that is a fact ...


 * You can start right in the Wikipedia, by looking at gravitational field. That gravitation was a field effect like electromagnetism was obvious to everyone until Einstein came along and related it to geometry instead. However, as soon as quantum field theory was formulated, the idea that gravity was a quantum field mediated by a spin 2 particle called a graviton became the common view. The difficulty was and is in making that actually work, which leads into supersymmetry, supergravity, superstrings, M-theory and a lot of other super stuff, as well as non-gravitonic alternative theories. Gene Ward Smith


 * gravitational field has no historical context to it. [ignores the quantum babble] JDR 04:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

as far as I can tell (from the various sources I've read), it was quite new and rather startling to many when Tesla noted his activities ...


 * Well, it certainly was not; the idea of relating gravity to electromagnetism was not even new, as for instance Kaluza-Klein.Gene Ward Smith


 * YMMV on it ... there are that state it was ... I'll try to find somethings ... JDR


 * "It is an intense focus of theoretical activity today"? like in gravity waves? ... amazing that Tesla worked on it more than 1/2 a century ago ...


 * Tesla didn't seem to understand GR, on the basis of the quote you supplied. There is zero evidence that whatever he was working on (which it seems no one knows, including you) had anything to do with what physicists are doing today.Gene Ward Smith


 * Sure it isn't ... just like everything else Tesla designed and mnde isn't [shakes my head] ... JDR 04:14, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * "common place notion for a long time"? could you nail down the exact length of time? the last few dacades? " a long time" is kinda nonspecific ... Tesla started the formulation a century ago ... and had it finish 50 years ago (according to some sources) ...
 * "business of the photoelectric effect was removed"? The photoelectric effect is important to this article [Tesla explained it 4-5 years BEFORE Einstien] and I reinserted it because it is relevant [see that article]


 * It's not a good way to discuss experimentally verifying $$E = Mc^2$$, and why should anyone care about Tesla's explanation of the photoelectric effect now, when we know what causes it? Einstein's work here was cited by the Nobel committee, and stands unchallenged today.


 * when we know what causes it? ... ??? Tesla was the 1st one to tell what it was ... radiant energy ... JDR


 * "more to do with quantum mechanics"? Umm ... Einstien's "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light" [ie., Photoelectric effect] was extened in the "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" paper and "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?" paper ... it is interrelated to his prior work [see Einstein's Bio] and ultimately resulted into QM [though other contributors helped futher QM].
 * Sincerely, JDR


 * Although the photoelectric effect may have stimulated Einstein on the line of thought that led to special relativity, it is not part of the theory of relativity in any meaningful sense and in particular is not a proof of $$E = Mc^2$$, as should be clear from any college physics textbook. Reddi, if the photoelectric effect is relevant, you have to explain why; I'm a grad student in physics and I don't see a relationship, I don't think there's any chance a layperson reading this article would.  There's a lot more in the article that seems unclear to me (for example the business about the ether - seems to be saying two different things), but I really don't know enough about the subject to say much more.
 * Rafael Greenblatt, Feb 23 2004


 * Read Einstien's bio ... read the photelectric effect ... read up on Tesla's patents and his bio ...
 * I don't think there's any chance a "expert" (read: non-lay person) reading this article would see a relationship ... primarily because most of the information on Tesla isn't widely acknowledged (or known, if you don't dig it up yourself) ...
 * As to the aether ... read up on Lord Kelvin (what he thought of the aether), Maxwells' life [and his original thoughts...] and the variety of Tesla's work's. [Tesla' concept is almost exactly analogous with the electromagnetism itself]
 * Seems unclear to you? Then please don't mess it up ...
 * Sincerely, JDR 04:14, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) [PS. look into Tesla's pressure waves and his longitudal wave research]

In the first sentence, what does "a model over matter and energy" mean? A description of matter and energy? Or a model concerning matter and energy? Glengarry 22:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

My changes
(William M. Connolley 20:54, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)) I've skeptical-ised the article a bit more (e.g. I've de-commented the initial caveat).

In particular:


 * I don't understand how a theory developed in 1892-4 can have been *intended* as an alternative to GR
 * Tesla didn't *explain* the photoelectric effect so I removed that stuff.
 * I added a note that no math details of the theory survive. If any do, please correct that...


 * The theory was initially developed in 1892-4 (aka., the start of the theory's formation) ... Tesla *intended* as an alternative to GR later, IIRC.
 * Tesla did explain the photoelectric effect [see that article!].
 * Thank for the "no math details of the theory survive".
 * JDR 22:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

better examples for mass-energy equivalence
I removed the phot electric effect from the  mass-energy equivalence paragraph and added two other, better examples. The mass-energy equivalence is really an everday seen experience for a lot of scientists, engineers - not to mention consumers of nuclear energy. Pjacobi 20:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dispute
The current version of article is strongly pro-Teslas gravity biased. The article has to somehow state Some remarks about the theory of relativity and general feeling of physics comunity are dubious/factualy incorrect. --Wikimol 08:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * well documented falsifiable suggestions of Tesla opposing Einstein are wrong (in the sense "contradicting experiment")
 * the rest was not developed to the state of scientific theory (in the sense "making predicitions about reality"), or, at least, was not published


 * (William M. Connolley 10:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I've restored it to an earlier version, which I think answers your criticisms. The page was originally a pro-tesla disaster area. I hacked it back to what I think was an acceptable state. I hope 172.129.20.31 isn't a Reddi reincarnation.