Re: Nikola Tesla about Relativity


tuvok wrote:
> 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.
> Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former.
> Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved
> spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves, Since action and reaction are
> coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible.

Undoubtedly Tesla is one of the greatest geniuses of the twentieth
century, but he was out of his element in dealing with GR. We owe to
his genius the modern power grid. But his notion that things tend to be
counter-ballanced out completely is untrue even in the classical realm:
A counter ballance is nature's way of keeping things from running off
to infinity, but that doesn't mean that things don't interact and
deform as a result. If two cars of different masses collide into each
other, at all times they undergo forces of equal and opposite amounts,
yet they interact so as to find a mutual equilibrium point of
interaction and deformation. Lenz's Law is such a case in
electrodynamics. But so is the case of placing a marble on a stretched
elastic ***. The marble and *** will find an equilibrium such that
the marble doesn't pop off the *** or penetrate the ***, but
deforms the *** in such a way that the marble comes to rest
eventually. Move the marble a little thereafter and a new equilibrium
state will be reached through negociated interactions.



> 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.

This is Tesla's way of saying that only the mechnanical notion of force
constitutes an "explanation" of gravitation. This is not provable,
rather, it is Tesla's personal bias. Any theory whatsoever that works
to deal with gravitation "explains" gravitation from its own formal
point of view.

> 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.

Tesla the metaphysicist. Ironically, Einstein believed in an ether (the
metric field) -- but not the mechanical ether of Lorentz.

>
> 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.

Tesla didn't live long enough to see the atom bomb explode (he died in
1943, IIRC). But even if he had, he could have always freely created
some hypothesis consistent with his dogma that energy is imbued into
matter from its enviroment. Humans are infinitely creative in that way.
They can protect any cherished dogma to the very end by creating any ad
hoc hypothesis that works and then and calling it the TRUTH.


> 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.

This is an example that it is one's preferential theory that one holds
to that interprets for one what one observes. Relativists see the same
results and "see" latent energy in the form of matter being transformed
into demonstrable energy. Who is right? Well, since when is physics
metaphysics? Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind,
and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external
world.


> 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.

No proof of this claim is presented to us, thus, it is pure dogma from
the viewpoint of Newtonian mechanics taken as truth. A new mechanics
could have a new viewpoint! Besides, it's the theory that tells us what
we observe.

> 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.

.

Loading