Tesla was critical of Einstein's relativity work, calling it:
"...[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists ...[76]”
Tesla also argued:
"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.[7]”
I think one reason Tesla didn't like relativity is that it removed the Cosmic Backdrop, the Cartesian grid of properly abstract space, and replaced it with a world where everything is local, everything is the center of its cosmos, every atom a solipsist. This appeared to Tesla, I believe, as removing the great bedrock of inertia from which Tesla theorized we could draw virtually unlimited power from the very air.
But Einstein was right: there are no straight lines. The only straight line would be an overall lambda wave looping on itself, just as walking on the ground -- a curved surface -- is the only straight line there is in relation to Terran gravity.
As I walk the curved surface of this flat earth, I also move 1k mph as the planet spins, move ? fast as the planet orbits the sun, ? fast as the solar system orbits around the center of the galaxy and in whatever (round!) eddies form in the turbulent galactic tide.
Circles, circles, circles.
Saying space cannot be curved because it can't have properties, being a mere abstraction of human thought, assumes that space is simply a product of human thought.
And human thought is the most roundabout thing in the cosmos.
Every standard 3-d map of any space of the cosmos using rectilinear grids, will suffer circular forms to be imposed upon it as soon as the Four Forces (gravity, electromag, weak nuke and strong nuke) are accounted for. Classic blackhole visualization shows a round vortex forming within a grid of squares. The curved forms caused by gravity and the other forces are real: it is the Cartesian grid that is entirely abstract.
Einstein didn't square the circle but he circled the squares.
Tesla also believed that much of Albert Einstein's relativity theory had already been proposed by Ruđer Bošković, stating in an unpublished interview:
“...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Ruđer Bošković, the great philosopher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Bošković dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum ...'.[78]"
Let's hear it for our illustrious countrymen!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think you misunderstand both Tesla's Ideas and Einsteins... You seem to be stating that Tesla had a problem with the Idea of curved shapes WITHIN space....which of course he had no problem with, and consequently this is not what Einstein is proposing either. Tesla had a problem with Einsteins abstract Idea of "space" which had no form what so ever, and yet could also be curved....Einsteins space is the absence of everything and yet has shape....It was this curved nothingness which Tesla disliked so much. It should be noted that Einstein himself had a serious problem with Quantum Physics....He stated that "God does not play dice with the Universe". Modern physics SEEMS to have proved him wrong in this case. I state this simply to show that Einstein is just as capable as Tesla at being wrong....at the same time though there is quite a serious possibility that the true model of the Universe is different than any concept any of us has come up with yet...every model of the universe is just that...a model, a theory....a useful map.....One should not mistake the map for the territory...Both Tesla and Einstein could be vindicated and dismissesed a dozen times over within the next 50 years for all we know. Science is always reinventing itself, and finding new and occaisionaly better ways of looking at the world.
except that some "scientists" like robert park are imbeciles, slowly turning science into a religion. he mocks patented inventions that do not conform to his understanding out of arrogance and ignorance as if he understands how the universe works.a patent will not be granted if the invention does not work.
Qouting : {Anonymous said...
except that some "scientists" like robert park are imbeciles, slowly turning science into a religion. he mocks patented inventions that do not conform to his understanding out of arrogance and ignorance as if he understands how the universe works.a patent will not be granted if the invention does not work.}
Well I agree with the Idea of the first part....in the sense of how you charectorize scientists as arrogently dismissing things that do not conform to their particular Idea of how the Universe works...even how they can make Science into a "religion"...which Ive certainly noticed some scientists who seem to base their deductions more on "faith" rather than imperical data.... I can not say that I am familiar with the particular scientist you mentioned "Robert Park" so I cannot really comment on what I think of him personaly....Now what I disagree with most wholeheartedly is youre belief that a patent proves that a device works. This is simply not the case....Beyond having to "convince" a Pattent official that a device is feasable....there is no real "Proof" that is USUALY required....Now most patent officials will deny a claim if it has particual buzz phraises in it such as "perpetual motion"....but often the exact same device can be snuck back in under a different heading and will pass. The required "Proof" is completely up to the pattent official who is generaly more concearned with whether or not the invention is novel and does not infringe on any other patents than he is with whether or not it will actually work. Generaly he or she must be persuaded that it is somewhat feasable but this is fairly subjective.....
Post a Comment