Frequency

maverick1 said:
Did Nikola Tesla ever experimented on time travel does he have any theories? :)
Click to expand...

No. Tesla was brilliant in his own field of electrical engineering.

His ventures into theoretical physics revealed his lack of education and understanding of advanced physics. For example, he never accepted that subatomic particles are composed of smaller particles (quarks) or that electrons are anything more than non-existent laboratory fantasies. He was firmly cast into a 19th Century Classical Newtonian understanding of physics. His incomplete university education took place in the 1870's (he dropped out) decades before Special Relativity, General Relativity, quantum mechanics and modern atomic theory were published. Brilliant as he was he never kept up with the literature and he never completed his undergraduate degree.

And please don't listen to folks that say a university education isn't necessary for a theoretical physicist. An undergraduate degree (BS degree) is just the beginning. Those are introductory courses. A full PhD plus Post-Doc work and Research Fellowships are necessary to understand the field. Remember, Tesla was active during the singular period of the most profound advances in physics in human history - 1880 to 1943. Lacking the educational foundations in newly advancing physics shut him off from fully participating in those advances. It's a shame but true. With a proper education his contributions could have been enormous.
 
Tesla's contributions were enormous. And many of his inventions are still being exploited for profit and gain to this day. Tesla didn't use theories. He used facts.
 
Einstein said:
Tesla's contributions were enormous. And many of his inventions are still being exploited for profit and gain to this day. Tesla didn't use theories. He used facts.
Click to expand...

As I said, he was brilliant. His contributions to electrical engineering were enormous. But he was limited due to a lack of an advanced modern education. He had the mind to be a lot more than he was but by the 1900 he'd fallen far behind those who should have been his peers in physics. Even though he made huge strides in electrical engineering he didn't actually understand electricity. It's a bit difficult to understand electricity if one denies that electrons exist. An example of his lack of knowledge involves his supposed Death Ray weapon. He proposed a directed charge beam weapon that would mow down everything in its path. Had he had the education he would have realized that 1) electrons actually do exist and 2) charged particle beam weapons are virtually impossible to create because Rutherford Scattering due to Coulomb forces between charged particles does exist. You can shoot out beams of electrons and they will remain a beam for...a few cm's at best.

And, frankly, he was also limited due to mental health issues: compulsive-obsessive personality disorder, sleep disorder, asocial (if not antisocial) personality disorder. He was a loner with few, if any, close friends during most of his life and he ended his life as a reclusive shut-in in extremely poor health.

And once again you purposely obfuscate the "facts" by misusing the term theory. In common jargon people tend to improperly use the term theory as if it means "one person's opinion." In science it means a body of facts offered as a rigorous explanation of some part of nature that is supported by a large body of experimental verification. They make predictions that can be verified.
 
Darby

And once again you purposely obfuscate the "facts" by misusing the term theory. In common jargon people tend to improperly use the term theory as if it means "one person's opinion." In science it means a body of facts offered as a rigorous explanation of some part of nature that is supported by a large body of experimental verification. They make predictions that can be verified.
Click to expand...

This is another Santa Claus argument. The definition you give for a theory is the same one I was told. But from direct observation, prominent theories in the scientific community are based in fiction and are being being promulgated as fact.

So which definition do I use? Obviously I'm going to use the one I see being used. Make something up, call it a theory, and claim it must be true.

Some examples:

Black holes: No facts were used in fabricating this concept.
String Theory: Extra dimensions appear to be a requirement for this theory. Pure fiction.
Hawking radiation theory: Just a fictional explanation of why we can't find evidence for black holes.
General theory of relativity: An explanation to explain away gravity with the concept of curved space-time. Pure fiction.
 
Black holes: No facts were used in fabricating this concept.
String Theory: Extra dimensions appear to be a requirement for this theory. Pure fiction.
Hawking radiation theory: Just a fictional explanation of why we can't find evidence for black holes.
General theory of relativity: An explanation to explain away gravity with the concept of curved space-time. Pure fiction.
Click to expand...

Honest answer requested: Have you actually gone on to ArXiv and read the several thousand papers on the subjects above in order to see what the researchers have written on these subjects? (Yes - I've read hundreds of them.) Or do you have preconceived opinions about these subjects that are in conflict with what is accepted as reality and choose to ignore the research (which ends up being a situation where you do exactly what you accuse the scientists of doing)? You blow off General Relativity, for example, because it proposed curved spacetime - yet you're clueless as to what the definition of curved spacetime actually is. You think that you know but you've never done any leg-work beyond Wiki to find out. Why? Because you have your own "theory" about what gravity is (and in this case I'm using your definition of theory; opinion unsupported by fact).

Go back and read your own posts. I ask this because what I suggest above is precisely what you have done. Someone asks a serious question about science and you make answer based solely on your unsupported opinion - and you call it a theory. Then you tell them to ignore Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Hawking, Kerr, etc. based on vapor. And the real problem is that they deserve serious and informed answers and not typical alt-sci crackpot nonsense.

If you're going to contest this post why not do it with some facts: Take on Einstein at the beginning. It should be easy for you because all else above that you term "Pure Fiction" follows directly from Einstein's first five 1905 papers. Pull down this 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (Special Relativity) and show us in the paper where he was wrong and precisely why. Not your opinion - facts.
 
A lot of people interchange the terms theorize and hypothesize without giving much thought to the meaning of each. To hypothesize is to put forward a hypothesis which is in essence a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. I could hypothesize that at the precise moment of death, the self/soul/conciousness travels back in time and is reborn into another body with all memories of their prior lifetime erased. I could propose that this is the reason why there appear to be some forward thinking people in history, such as Leonardo da Vinci, who may have retained residule memories of their prior life. But of course my hypothesis cannot be proven and cannot be further investigated.

Now people/relgious systems have hypothesized that at the precise moment of death, the soul moves forward and is reborn into another body with all memories of their prior lifetime erased. However there are a few people (in particular children) who claim to retain memories of their prior life, which adds further weight to the hypothesis. Now this hypothesis can be rigourously tested, which in turn could lead to an empirically supported hypothesis, which in turn could lead to a proven theory about Reincarnation. The way I understand it is a hypothesis is "something" that is unproven and speculative as opposed to a theory which is supported and proven (more than once) by verifiable data.

 
Darby said:
Honest answer requested: Have you actually gone on to ArXiv and read the several thousand papers on the subjects above in order to see what the researchers have written on these subjects? (Yes - I've read hundreds of them.) Or do you have preconceived opinions about these subjects that are in conflict with what is accepted as reality and choose to ignore the research (which ends up being a situation where you do exactly what you accuse the scientists of doing)? You blow off General Relativity, for example, because it proposed curved spacetime - yet you're clueless as to what the definition of curved spacetime actually is. You think that you know but you've never done any leg-work beyond Wiki to find out. Why? Because you have your own "theory" about what gravity is (and in this case I'm using your definition of theory; opinion unsupported by fact).

Go back and read your own posts. I ask this because what I suggest above is precisely what you have done. Someone asks a serious question about science and you make answer based solely on your unsupported opinion - and you call it a theory. Then you tell them to ignore Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Hawking, Kerr, etc. based on vapor. And the real problem is that they deserve serious and informed answers and not typical alt-sci crackpot nonsense.

If you're going to contest this post why not do it with some facts: Take on Einstein at the beginning. It should be easy for you because all else above that you term "Pure Fiction" follows directly from Einstein's first five 1905 papers. Pull down this 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (Special Relativity) and show us in the paper where he was wrong and precisely why. Not your opinion - facts.
Click to expand...

Lets start with, here is the place to go if you want to become more knowledgeable about something.

Google Scholar

And let me refresh your memory on the reference frames of the earth. The Michelson-Morley experiment clearly shows a reference frame that exists about the earth that has no motion. A freely gimballed powered gyroscope will align itself with the axis of the earth within a 24 hour period. The gyroscope indicates the presence of an external reference frame that the earth rotates within.

These are undeniable facts. In fact both observations appear to be at odds with one another. Both devices can detect rotation. Yet only one of them does. So it's two covarying reference frames with slightly differing properties. Notice that I didn't interpret with an opinion. I merely stated observed facts.

Now I did notice you didn't choose one of the fictional theories I pointed out. Chicken?

Maybe you feel safe choosing Special Relativity.

So I read through the preamble and realize Einstein doesn't appear to be familiar with the laws of electromagnetic induction. Discovered by Faraday. Possibly due to the historical records claims of Einstein's lack of academic prowess. However it is apparent that he is aware of the two frames of reference about the earth. But then he conjectures that mechanics and electrodynamics should conform to the same laws for all frames of reference. Looks like he glossed over those two distinct reference frames. He calls it the Principle of Relativity. Then he states that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. That statement is not true. The motion of an emitting body does add or subtract to the velocity of c. And I cite the operation of a radar gun as factual evidence disproving Einstein's claim.


So I am a stickler for claiming it's wrong to replace facts with opinions and theories. In fact if the guidelines for fabricating theories were adhered to, then we wouldn't have any theories at all. If a theory is assembled with facts, then any predictable outcome from the theory would rapidly become fact or fiction. Thus making the theory confirmed fact, or a failed theory. That is why Relativity is still in limbo status. The fictional basis can never be confirmed.

In case you're wondering if I do have my own theory of gravity. Well the answer is no. None needed. There are enough facts present to assemble something made out of facts. Why make something up, when mother nature shows you how?
 
E=MC^2

Amongst other things this says a high enough energy density will approximate matter density.

Have a powerful enough solenoid and you will have gravity and the associated spacetime distortion.
 
Robot said:
E=MC^2

Amongst other things this says a high enough energy density will approximate matter density.

Have a powerful enough solenoid and you will have gravity and the associated spacetime distortion.
Click to expand...

I believe that statement E=MC^2 is pure fiction. What is mass? I did an intensive search on that concept. It appears to be a calibrated quantity of gravitational weight divided by same to give what we know as mass. But gravitational weight is variable and can be zero. How can a weightless object have mass?
 
There is no inventor for the concept. And I might add mass is not in any physical observation. Why are the observations being replaced with something that isn't real?
 
Einstein said:
There is no inventor for the concept. And I might add mass is not in any physical observation. Why are the observations being replaced with something that isn't real?
Click to expand...

Many Physics models are not "real", nevertheless they are very useful. F=MA,(with the current definition of "mass") got astronauts to the moon and airplanes off the ground.

F=MA or it's components may be replaced some day, but for now it works pretty well. "Real" or not..............
 
Darby said:
No. Tesla was brilliant in his own field of electrical engineering.

His ventures into theoretical physics revealed his lack of education and understanding of advanced physics. For example, he never accepted that subatomic particles are composed of smaller particles (quarks) or that electrons are anything more than non-existent laboratory fantasies. He was firmly cast into a 19th Century Classical Newtonian understanding of physics. His incomplete university education took place in the 1870's (he dropped out) decades before Special Relativity, General Relativity, quantum mechanics and modern atomic theory were published. Brilliant as he was he never kept up with the literature and he never completed his undergraduate degree.

And please don't listen to folks that say a university education isn't necessary for a theoretical physicist. An undergraduate degree (BS degree) is just the beginning. Those are introductory courses. A full PhD plus Post-Doc work and Research Fellowships are necessary to understand the field. Remember, Tesla was active during the singular period of the most profound advances in physics in human history - 1880 to 1943. Lacking the educational foundations in newly advancing physics shut him off from fully participating in those advances. It's a shame but true. With a proper education his contributions could have been enormous.
Click to expand...

>he never accepted that subatomic particles are composed of smaller particles (quarks)
I thought a quark was a subatomic particle? Isn't this statement redundant? Shouldn't it read, "He never accepted that atomic particles consisted of subatomic particles such as quarks?"
Tesla had a fetish for symmetry because he wasn't blind to it.
>or that electrons are anything more than non-existent laboratory fantasies.
Because they aren't. Electrons only exist as counter-wave functions of nuclei; they are ways for nature to establish a closed surface of 0 net charge for symmetry and balance to the atom. Ions are the result of a difference in charge distribution. Chemical interactions are the result of these orbital geometries interacting physically.
Molecular orbital theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

>He was firmly cast into a 19th Century Classical Newtonian understanding of physics.
And one day, someone will say that you were firmly cast into your own ignorant understanding of your own time as well.

>His incomplete university education took place in the 1870's (he dropped out) decades before Special Relativity, General Relativity, quantum mechanics and modern atomic theory were published. Brilliant as he was he never kept up with the literature and he never completed his undergraduate degree.
And he showed quite clearly that you don't need an undergraduate degree to earn a nobel prize or be the father of the modern age.

>And please don't listen to folks that say a university education isn't necessary for a theoretical physicist.
I'm not listening to any folks saying anything, I'm just looking at the cold fact that Tesla demonstrated.

>With a proper education his contributions could have been enormous.
With a proper education of his contributions you would see they were far beyond enormous.
Too bad a majority of his contributions have been covered up because of the greediness of other people.
 
Sorry to exhume this thread, but I watched this movie the other day while quarantining after finding the DVD at my Dad's place. Touching, engaging, and a bit crazy with the action, especially in the last act. After watching it, I kept thinking about the poor fella here in the forums who just wanted to go back in time and save his mom.
 
Back
Top