Talk:Dynamic theory of gravity
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 Archives |
|---|
Cleanup
This article was terribly disorganized, so I have cleaned it up and tried to make it read more gracefully and to make it more WP:NPOV. One important disclaimer: I am worried about the provenance of the alleged 1937 press statement by Tesla. I took the original authors at their word, but the only source I can find for this statement is a website which I would consider extremely cranky. Unless someone can produce a scan of a notarized photocopy of a contemporary newspaper from the vault, I thing we must regard the quotations from this statement as unverified (but plausible). Hence the occurrence of allegedly in the current version (hopefully not too distracting). ---CH 09:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope it will be largely acceptable to everyone; should anyone wish to object to anything I wrote, I hope they will take it here, so that I can attempt to rewrite the article in the same style as the current version.
The talk page was getting rather bloated, so I archived the earlier discussions, which I understand to have been closed. ---CH 09:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- The press statement seems to mesh with [1], for what it's worth. It would indeed be good to have some verifiable sources. - mako 09:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd be very cautious about uncritically accepting something found at one of these crank websites (google this one to see what I mean) without authentication from a mainstream source. Writers at these cites are very prone to making wild assertions claiming special knowledge of secret governemnt work and so forth. An alleged reprint of a press release seems innocuous enough... but I'd still urge great caution in using anything you can find only at such sites.---CH 05:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Precision?
To be fair, these arguments are not easy nor without error
could somebody give comments on that ? It is supposed to mean that the original arguments of Einstein had some errors or that there are true errors when asserting that free bodies have a geodesic motion ? thx! LeYaYa
- "without error" seems to be misleading, and probably wrong, so I've removed it William M. Connolley 12:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC).
- Hi, 72.144.71.99, I liked most of your tweaks, but WMC is right; you misunderstood what I meant there. When I find time to write decent articles on EIH and related background, you'll see more clearly why I wrote these arguments are not easy but added they are regarded as essentially correct. ---CH 05:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Factual Error
"feel anticipates Ernest Rutherford's plum-pudding model of the atom"
Rutherford's model of the atom superseeded the "plum pudding model" where the +ve and -ve charge were evenly spread out in the atom, with the current model of electrons orbiting a nucleus. Have edited page accordingly.
Also "'infinitesimal world, with molecules and their atoms spinning and moving in orbits, in much the same manner as celestial bodies carrying with them static charges', which some feel anticipates Ernest Rutherford's nuclear model of the atom"
I do not believe this refers to a model of the atom but of atomic interaction... just a thought, im not going to edit "some" people's opinion without feedback
Wow that was a v fast edit thanq --AjP 09:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Yet another error
The page stated that Tesla felt energy could not be obtained from nuclear fission. This amounts to a widespread but nonetheless completely incorrect misinterpretation of nuclear reactions. The mass-energy relationship E=mc2 is NOT necessary to explain nuclear reactions. In the absence of SR, one could still say that nuclear fission occurs, but that the rest mass of the products would not be different.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.88.44 (talk)
- Just to be clear: the misconception was Tesla's. ---CH 19:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Speculation and Guesswork
It is a pity that Tesla's notes are lost, as he tended to bring a fresh look and originality to the discussion, rather than simply regurgitating the current dogma. Having achieved the 'impossible' of an AC electric motor, and together with Westinghouse, proposed AC distribution networks when most of his contemporaries were wasting their time with highly impractical DC systems, his opinion ought to carry some weight.
Such an intellect should not be dismissed lightly. Even if quite wrong, I'm sure he would have brought some original speculation to what has become a highly dogmatic, practically stagnant, area of debate.
At worst he may have sinned against the great god relativity, but then so did Einstein fall by the wayside in refusing to accept the quantum mechanics doctrine. Yet Einstein was granted absolution by the scientific establishment.
Perhaps it was in his character that he needed to be out of step with his contemporaries, so that he refused to accept the current wisdom as a matter of pure obstinacy, who knows?
The argument that he was wrong because general relativity is 'right' has absolutely no place in science. We have no way of knowing what experiments he proposed to disprove general relativity, or what their outcome might be.
This article needs to restrict itself to the facts. Gordon Vigurs 10:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea. Shall we replace it with the simple statement that "nothing of any significance is known of teslas theory"? William M. Connolley 21:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PRODIGAL GENIUS
The Life of Nikola Tesla by John J. O'Neill (1944) Complete On-Line Volume http://rastko.org.yu/istorija/tesla/oniell-tesla.html
Fourth Part SELF-MADE SUPERMAN http://rastko.org.yu/istorija/tesla/oniell-tesla.html#_Toc496780563