Re: Nikola Tesla about Relativity
- From: "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 06:51:03 GMT
"tuvok" <520001085531-0001@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dp4snd$4h4$02$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Prepared Statement of Tesla. July 10, 1937
> Interview with press on 81st birthday observance
>
> [...]
> During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was fortunate
> enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was
> a dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and
> hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes
> of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so
> satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations
> and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the
> relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent
> property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality
> to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory.
GR is logically consistent.
> Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of
> the latter are directly opposite to those of the former.
Such is closely related to absolute time which has been experimentally
disproven
> Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature
> of the same,
Such a conception is wrong - first space is not curved - space-time is
curved - secondly the theory does not say mass energy causes space-time
curvature any more that EM says charged particles cause electric fields.
> it appears to my simple mind
Telsa's mind was not simple but on the issue of relativity he was wrong.
> that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the
> opposite effects, straighten out the curves,
???????????. Nor does it appear Telsa understands what the theory says.
Particles follow the straightest possible paths in space-time - these are
called geodesics. I suspect at that age senility had set in.
> Since action and reaction are
> coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely
> impossible. But even if it existed it would not explain the
> motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force
> can account for them and its assumption dispenses with
> space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to
> oblivion. So are also all attempts to explain the workings
> of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the
> indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.
>
> My second discovery was a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I
> have searched the scientific records in more than half
> dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I
> consider myself the original discoverer of this truth,
> which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter
> other than that received from the environment. On my 79th
> birthday I made a brief reference to it, but its meaning and significance
> have become clearer to me since then. I applies rigorously
> to molecules and atoms as well as the largest heav-enly bodies, and to all
> matter in the universe in any phase of its existence from
> it: very formation to its ultimate disintegration.
>
> Being perfectly satisfied that all energy in matter is drawn from the
> environment, it was quite natural that when radioactivity was
> discovered in 1896 I immediately started a search for the external agent
> which caused it. The existence of radioactivity was
> positive proof of the existence of external rays. I had previously
> investigated various terrestrial disturbances affecting wireless
> circuits but none of them or any others emanating from the earth could
> produce a steady sustained action and I was driven to the
> conclusion that the activating rays were of cosmic origin. This fact I
> announced in my papers on Roentgen rays and Radiations
> contributed to the Electrical Review of New York, in 1897. However, as
> radioactivity was observed equally well in other widely
> separated parts of the world, it was obvious that the rays must be
> impinging on the earth from all directions. Now, of all bodies in
> the Cosmos, our sun was most likely to furnish a clue as to their origin
> and character. Before the electron theory was advanced, I
> had established that radioactive rays consisted of particles of primary
> matter not further decomposable, and the first question to
> answer was whether the sun is charged to a sufficiently high potential to
> produce the effects noted. This called for a prolonged
> investigation which culminated in my finding that the sun's potential was
> 216 billions of volts and that all such large and hot
> heavenly bodies emit cosmic rays. Through further solar research and
> observation of Novae this has been proved conclusively, and to
> deny it would be like denying the light and heat of the sun. Nevertheless,
> there are still some doubters who prefer to shroud the
> cosmic rays in deep mystery. I am sure that this is not true for there is
> no place where such a process occurs in this or any other
> universe beyond our ken.
>
> A few words will be sufficient in support of this contention. The kinetic
> and potential energy of a body is the result of motion and
> determined by the product of its mass and the square of velocity. Let the
> mass be reduced, the energy is diminished in the same
> proportion. If it be reduced to zero the energy is likewise zero for any
> finite velocity. In other words, it is absolutely
> impossible to convert mass into energy.
It is experimentally proven such is possible.
Bill
> It would be different if there were forces in nature capable of imparting
> to a mass infinite
> velocity. Then the product of zero mass with the square of infinite
> velocity would represent infinite energy. But we know that there
> are no such forces and the idea that mass is convertible into energy is
> rank nonsense.
> [...]
>
> Full text:
> http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/articles/19370710.doc
>
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Nikola Tesla about Relativity
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Nikola Tesla about Relativity
- Prev by Date: Re: The Lorentz factor does not apply to the photon!!
- Next by Date: Re: I need someone's brain juice here?
- Previous by thread: I need someone's brain juice here?
- Next by thread: Re: Nikola Tesla about Relativity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
