Talk:Dynamic theory of gravity/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dispute tag, again

(William M. Connolley 18:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Anon ae inserted at the top (and I've moved it down here):

This whole article is full of rubbish, and needs a complete re-write/deletion. It's not historical and doesn't pretend to be, and while it adopts the tone of a discussion regarding scientific principles, it's certainly not that. In fact, it reads like a typical crackpot piece (which as often as not invoke Tesla), and should be treated as such. -ae

IMHO the beginning:

At the time of his announcement, his critique on Einstein's work was considered by the scientific establishment to exceed the bounds of reason. Nowadays it is simply ignored. ... No mathematical details of the theory are available, nor is there any evidence that Tesla ever worked them out.

is sufficient disclaimer. Lower down, the "structure" section begins:

Note: the structure of Tesla's theory is not known. The reconstruction attempted below is speculative.

I can't quite see how you can ask for much more than that. The attention tag is plauisble; the dispute tag is in my opinion unreasonable. At the moment, the casual reader is more likely to be mislead by the dispute tag into thinking that the discliamers are disputed, rather than the text.

Does anyone familiar with the topic know if the stuff in "Theory structure" actually came from Tesla? The phrase "the reconstruction attempted below is speculative" suggests that it is something invented by Reddi. If that is the case, it should be deleted; Wikipedia is not a repository for personal theories of the universe. The rest of the stuff seems OK. -- CYD
(William M. Connolley 12:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I'm not familiar with the topic (is anyone?). I rather suspect it of being teslaphile invention. Go for it.
Here is another reference to Tesla's DToG FYI:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Tesla%27s_Dynamic_Theory_of_Gravity
Luke
I still think the whole lot should be deleted; on the one hand it has no scientific merit, and on the other the author spends most of the article talking about a `theory' which he clearly states is his own speculative invention. Why is it in Wikipedia? Inserting a disclaimer into an article saying that it isn't true isn't sufficient reason to keep it in an encylopedia; the piece must have some other merit besides. And I think we all agree that this piece does not. - ae

WMC, you wrote on my talk page that In particular, you restored "Few mathematical details of the theory are available", as it was never fully published whereas I would prefer *no* math details (no one has ever advanced any...) and never published at all. If this is your only objection to my edits, may I suggest you make that one correction, instead of reverting wholesale.

Your version of the article is markedly inferior. It is much less organized, and contains bogues statements like the following:

  • (a model over the aether, matter, and energy -- what the heck do you mean by this?
  • At the time of his announcement, his critique on Einstein's work was considered by the scientific establishment to exceed the bounds of reason. Nowadays it is simply ignored. -- what does "exceed the bounds of reason" mean? Instead of this condescending statement, my version clearly explains why scientists ignore this "theory" -- because its competitor, Einstein's GR, actually works.

Thanks, -- CYD

(William M. Connolley 08:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Err, well if you accept that "few" is wrong and should be "none", why have you re-inserted few? [Response to the above points:]
Simply put: you started it. The onus is not on me to perform this kind of fine-tuning while you're engaging in unjustified wholesale reverts of my improvements to the article. As for your points:
  • I know enough GR to understand that the statement is gibberish. I removed it, you put it back. Why?
  • This statement also appears in the version of the article you reverted to; it's not something I put in. So what's your problem? (By the way, it should probably be "gravity" rather than "gravitational radiation"; I can make that correction once you're done with your silly revert war.) -- CYD
(William M. Connolley 19:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Well I'm sorry to have ended up in this state with you, because I had no intent to fight you. I trying to keep the article sane I ended up with few/no as my touchstone of a reasonable version. So, my apologies for having wholesale reverted your changes.

RfC

OK, I'd like each of you to briefly explain what you think is wrong, and what needs to be done about it. Dan100 (Talk) 20:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Good to see someone interested. In brief-as-possible, I think there is no evidence for the existence of this theory. Tesla probably wanted a theory; he probably thought about a theory; but he never did the work to create one (sadly wiki policy probably prevents us saying that, but thats another matter). This is why no details are available. This is why I like the intro to say No mathematical details of the theory are available, Tesla never published them, and there is no evidence that Tesla ever worked them out besides his own testimony (anon added the "besides his own testimony; thats OK by me). After that, the main bulk of the article can be filled with wild speculation for all I care; its had its disclaimer. I slightly disagree with CYD over Because of this, as well as the achievements of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, Tesla's theory was never accepted by physicists., and would prefer nowadays it is simply ignored, but this isn't a big matter. The disputes were with the anon, whose current prefered version is: Mathematical details of the theory are unavailable, as Tesla was never able to published them, and there is no evidence that Tesla ever worked them out (besides his own testimony) (there was a previous version that was: Few mathematical details of the theory are available, as it was never fully published, and there is no evidence that Tesla ever worked them out). The anons version, to me, implies that the details exist but are unavailable and that mysterious forces prevented Tesla publishing them. (The "few" version seems to have been abandoned, which is good, because few implies at least some, and none are given).
Having said that, the obvious point (were you to accept my POV, which obvious I do...) is, should this be VFD'd? For its own intrinsic value, yes. For keeping junk off the main Nikola Tesla page, probably not. (William M. Connolley 21:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)).
Details may have existed and, if they did, it's not some mysterious force which prevented them from being published after his death. It's is well known that the whole lot of his personal effects and papers were taken by the Office of Alien Property (upon Hoover's orders), then lost in the bueractraic shuffle (though they were not suppose to have taken them in the first place [he was an American citizen]). You can find the documentation on this at the FBI website (goto the FOIA section and search for Tesla). Here is the link to the file that stated that some of his papers and personal effects "accidently" got lost foia.fbi.gov tesla. PS. This also should be pointed out in the article.
OUO, Details may have existed is junk. Wiki isn't here to record things that might-have-been. Tesla could easily have published the theory during his life, had it existed. He didn't. The obvious explanation is because it didn't actually exist. William M. Connolley 09:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).
O' upside down pictured one, the details may have existed. It may be junk in your POV, but Wiki is here to record things that have citations (Tesla said he completed them). Please tell me exactly how Tesla could easily have published the theory during his life? The obvious explanation is fallacious.
WMC, this should not be deleted. It's like saying that Einstein's general theory of gravitation or the theory of relativity should be deleted. sheesh! Just because you don't agree with it, don't understand it, or it doesn't fit your view, doesn't mean that it should be deleted.
The difference is, Einsteins theories were... published. In scientific journals. They exist, to this day. You're interested? Go look them up. Teslas DToG is vapourware. William M. Connolley 09:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).
AE's GTG is unpublished. NT's DTOG is unpuiblished. You though cannot have a NPOV view though it seems.

Erm, Einstein published his work. Anyway, moving on... I'm sorry I didn't come back to this sooner; I've been over-committing myself recently.

I suggest the article should state both what William and the anon is saying. Specifically, I prefer William's suggested wording: No mathematical details of the theory are available, Tesla never published them, and there is no evidence that Tesla ever worked them out besides his own testimony, as that is the truth. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to state that some of Tesla's papers went missing due to the OAP and then bureaucracy. What I don't think would be acceptable is to say "Tesla may have written this but his work was lost", as that's pure speculation.

To be clear, I think we should state only what is known - that no details are available, but that some of Tesla's work is lost. We should not suggest there is a link between the two, as that is impossible to verify. How does that sound? Dan100 (Talk) 14:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Einstein did not published his work on the Generalized theory of gravity (relativity yes, but not his unified field theory).
No mathematical details of the theory are available, Tesla never published them, and there is no evidence that Tesla ever worked them out besides his own testimony does not address that the details may exist (remote chance) or did exist at one time (a more likely senerio). If the prceding line is used it should be explicitly clear that Tesla's papers went missing due to the gov and FBI (via the OAP and bureaucracy), as that is the truth (e.g., that the part of the no evidence be changed little; this to address the missing papers issue). Tesla stated that he did complete this work and, if true (as the majority of his other statements were true (efficient lights, AC motors, long distance power generation, radio pinciples and radar principles, the egg of coloumbus, harnessing the niagara falls)), his work was lost. Is there any reason to doubt that he did this? Stating that the "mathematical details of the theory are unavailable" does this - but that no details are available and that portions of Tesla's work is lost (the gov states that the papers are "missing", presumably lost forever). This is a statement of fact.
Why is it unreasonable to state the work may existed at one time? How would this be original research? Would the view of an external reference be helpful (in attempts to help verification)? I'll review some of the Tesla Symposiums journals I have access to (among other older sources) which may shed light on this more clearly. Tesla's statement and what occured at his death implicitly suggests there is a link between the two, though I am not advocating that the article state there was a conspiracy (the orders of Hoover to the agents does not help discourage the implication that there was an organized act of a crime (illegal siezure), though). This question to if he did or did not have a full and mathematical theory is an open question (which would not be solved until the specific works and personal effects missing are produced; a remote chance, but not completely unlikely).
How does your proposal sound? I would have reservation on it, unless there is a modification on the evidence part. I would be more in favor of stating what you stated above, Details are not available, but some of Tesla's work is lost. -Anon
Because wiki is not here for wild surmises. Because there is no evidence whatsoever for this, beyond Tesla own statement and your own desire. To the contrary, if he had worked them out, it is reasonable to suppose that he would have published them, as Einstein did with so many versions of his theories. The std.scientific approach is "first publication gets credit" and the reverse implication is no publication gets no credit William M. Connolley 15:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).
This is not a "wild surmise". There is evidence for this, Tesla own statement (which you concede). Is there any reason to doubt that he did this?
His other statements were true (power generation methods, radio pinciples, radar principles, harnessing the Niagara Falls)). Even his remarks on receiving signals from space are true (though he misinterpreted this as intelligent signals, now we know that they were signals from cosmic bodies (eg., stars or planets)). The theory may have been right or wrong, but he said he had completed it!
William, we have what I think is a good compromise below and anon seems agreeable to it. Will you endorse it? Dan100 (Talk) 16:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference for Tesla saying he did complete this? In which case the correct course of action would be to say "the work was never published, Tesla's papers were lost, but writing in [ref] Tesla stated that he did complete the work". How does that sound? Dan100 (Talk) 21:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

A references? Yes. Tesla's "Prepared Statement of Tesla". It's already cited in the article (eg., "worked out in all details"). I would not mind the inclusion of the statement that that the exact details (eg., mathematical formulas) of the theory are unavailable (other than the general ones cited in the statement), as they are missing. The statement "The work was never published, as Tesla's papers were lost, but in a prepared statement (July 10, 1937) Tesla stated that he did complete the work." is not bad, atleast it is better than most of the previous statements in the intro that explained this. -Anon

"The work was never published, as Tesla's papers were lost, but in a prepared statement (July 10, 1937) Tesla stated that he did complete the work" is fine with me (I had a look at your link, thanks). I believe that complies with all aspects of Wikipedia policy. Put it in if you like! Dan100 (Talk) 15:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

No, this is not acceptable: as Tesla's papers were lost implies very strongly that the theory did exist. There is, besides his own statement, absolutely no evidence for the existence of the theory. The version you have above is far worse than the one OUO thought acceptable. This is not a compromise; its a step backwards. William M. Connolley 16:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).
William M. Connolley, don't let your own POV cloud the issue.
Tesla's papers were lost! It implies that his effects and works are gone!
The theory could have existed. You have refused to state if there is any reason to doubt his statement that he did this? Besides his own statement, evidence for the existence of the theory is lacking (mainly because his papers and other personal effects are not available).
The version above is far better than yours, William M. Connolley. This is a compromise; not a step backwards. -Anon
That T's papers were lost ***after his death*** tells us nothing about what was in them, and did not prevent him from publishing them during his lifetime. Indeed, after-death publication is very much the exception, and there is no reason to think why T should have held out - other than the papers non-existence, of course. "The theory could have existed"!!! That is so weak. Wiki is not here to record things that *could* have existed. William M. Connolley 17:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).
That Tesla's papers were lost after his death tells us something about what was in them. That the government thought they were valuable and should be taken. You also didn't exactly tell me how he was to publishing them during his lifetime?
Indeed, after-death publication may be an exception, but it could have been published. There is a reason to think why Tesla didn't publish his papers. This would be the same reason why Hannes Alfven couldn't get his papers published! It probably been rejected on the ground that it did not agree with the theoretical calculations of Einstein.
The statement that "other than the papers non-existence" is fallacious, as I told you. William M. Connolley, you cannot reason and have little logic. -Anon

OK William, valid point there. How about "The work was never published, and after Tesla's death a number of his papers were lost, but in a prepared statement (July 10, 1937) Tesla stated that he did complete the work"? Dan100 (Talk) 18:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm unkeen about this after death loss of papers stuff. All we know about the "lost papers" is that we know absolutely nothing about them (our anon is still insisting, above, that That Tesla's papers were lost after his death tells us something about what was in them. That is not true. It is the Tesla-phile junk conspiracy. I think the anons stuff above tells you a lot. She manages to say You also didn't exactly tell me how he was to publishing them during his lifetime?. You can (I hope) recognise this for rubbish. Publishing good science then and now was not dificult - especially if you had Teslas stature). A statement that implies there may have been something in them is dubious, from my POV. You are being admirably patient with the anon, but I think you're being patient with a troll. My version is No mathematical details of the theory are available, Tesla never published them, and there is no evidence that Tesla ever worked them out besides his own testimony. I admit, this isn't a compromise, because its my wording (actually even that isn't true, because the "except for testimony" is the anons; I'm dubious as to whether that counts as evidence, but can live with it). But it is (a) accurate (b) not misleading. Going on from there... up to now, my attitude has been, put a decent disclaimer at the start, and let the - ahem - Teslaphiles sort out the contents. It keeps them happy. But if the disclaimer is going to be bodged, then the contents need to be looked at more closely. William M. Connolley 22:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).
You should change your alignment from NG to LE (with slander (such as "troll" and "Teslaphiles"), no comprimises, and your POV edits). -Anon

I agree that no significance can be inferred from the papers being lost. I think I've managed to go in a giant circle here :-) - looking at it again, your wording does cover all the bases of verifiable fact.

Anon, William's wording does say "except for testimony", which would be an ideal place to put a footnote reference thingy (what's the proper term?!). Why not do that? I know that you want to mention the lost papers, but the truth is we don't know what was in them, and we don't know the truth of how they were lost - and unless we can verify something, we can't put it in WP. Dan100 (Talk) 13:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Mathematical details of the theory are unavailable, Tesla never published them, and there is no evidence that Tesla ever worked them out (besides his own testimony). is better WMC's version. The only difference between the two lines? "No" and the word "unavailable / available". The line Mathematical details of the theory are unavailable states that the mathematical details are not available, nor accessible, nor at hand. This is verifiable fact. -Anon
Put in short sentences that cover all the bases: No mathematical details of the theory are available. Tesla's testimony, though, stated that he worked them out in "all details". Tesla never published them. There is no available evidence that he worked them out. -Anon

POV editing and inaccuracy

Pjacobi, Salsb, William M. Connolley all edit this article in a POV fashion. As seen from the discussion, they are in a mission to edit with a POV and make anything to do with Telsa inaccurate. 216.185.232.203 8 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
Hi, gentle patron of multiple libraries in Kansas City, could you please create a single user account like the rest of us? Appearing in an edit war as a succession of numerical IP addies just makes you look a bit sneaky, which doesn't help your case. It certainly doesn't make you more anonymous than if you created a user with a suitable moniker, such as Teslafan. I'm new to Wikipedia, don't know Salsb, WMC, and I've barely seen any articles by PJ either, so I think I'm unbiased. And I'm knowledgeable about classical gravitation. You seem to be convinced that the world is giving short schrift to Tesla in the field of theoretical physics. I doubt that's true, but if you think I'm wrong, how about this: instead of continuing in a pointless edit war, please create a user, reply to me on this page, and support some of your assertions with citations of reliable scholarly publication, or anything the factual accuracy of which I can reasonably verify. It seems you spend a lot of time in places with lots of books, so presumably some of them support some of your assertions, right?---CH (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Did Tesla understand Einstein?

Anon wrote:

unbelievable an experienced editor would allow this sentence to remain. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board for "guessing" what people thought

Since this entire article is an exercise in "guessing" what Tesla meant by his theory (which probably doesn't deserve the name of theory), its tempting to take her sreiously and just blank the whole thing. But maybe not... William M. Connolley 23:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This article should NOT be for "guessing" what Tesla meant by his theory. It should only include what was stated about the theory and nothing more.
I agree that our irate anon's complaint is absurd. This whole business is a sad postscript to Tesla's career, but however frustrating our Tesla fan's antics become, blanking the article is probably not warranted, if for no other reason than the fact that said Tesla fan(s?) make such a fuss about this "theory" that there is some need for an NPOV article on Tesla's crankier ideas to provide a correction. ---CH 00:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What is so absurd about the complaint? Stating that Tesla "did not understand Einstein's theories" is a highly opioniated, almost dialogue-like assumption that has no merit. It is the equivalent of saying that modern-day Relativity denouncers (the few that exist) just "don't understand relativity" Such sentences do not belong in this article or any article for that matter. And about deleting the article; rather than entirely deleting it we can simply make one article that makes small note of it - if you wish.

(Unsigned comment by someone using 68.212.177.210)

the few that exist? How high can you count?!! As for Tesla's failure to understand gtr, he claimed it is self-contradictory, which is a major misconception right there. Gtr is not a perfect theory, but it is self-consistent. It also has the not inconsiderable virtue of giving highly accurate predictions in all the regimes in which we've been able to cleanly test it thus far. ---CH 09:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, please stay civil. There are still many notable academics who find problems with relativity. Anyway, Wikipedia is not for making suggestive comments. There is no commentary on an encyclopedia. The sentence is controversial, inappropriate, and ultimately unnecessary in this article. I have reverted the addition of it for those reasons. Please attempt to dicuss this at length and see a new side, for otherwise it makes it appear that the accusations in the discussion above this one are true. 72.144.114.155 05:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, 72.144.114.155. My understanding is that the discussion in this section concerns the sentence
His basic arguments against space being curved by gravitational effects demonstrate that he failed to understand Einstein's theories.
Apparently you feel this fails to respect WP:NPOV. I feel that it is a mildly worded characterization of things which Tesla allegedly said in the news conference described in the article. To take just one example, I expect that any physicist would agree that the statement by Tesla that the product of zero mass with the square of infinite velocity would represent infinite energy reflects an obvious misconception about how zero rest mass energy particles are treated in special relativity. In other words, I think the evidence that Tesla misunderstood Einstein rather badly is apparent from his own words as described in the article. ---CH 05:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Even if your assumptions are correct, they are, for now, just assumptions. There is no direct evidence to show that Tesla "didn't understand" Einstein's theory. We can only gather inclinations from his quote. For all we know, Tesla may have been thinking of it in a completely different way and only failed in explanation. We cannot add assumptions or subjective analysis of quotations into neutral encyclopedia entries such as this. All in all, the sentence is unnecessary to the bulk of understanding in this article, and I wouldn't expect there to be much discussion of its removal. Removing factual data from the page would be another story. Allow the readers to derive whether or not that quote shows that Tesla misunderstood the theory; force-feeding it to them does end up being POV.
Also, on other pages, some of Tesla's lesser known theories/projects are labelled as "pseudoscience." The definition of pseudoscience does not fit, however, "pseudophysics" is defined differently and would be minimally acceptable. Just so you know, I'm replacing pseudoscience with pseudophysics. (72.144.114.155)
Bell South anon, please consider registering since it is confusing to keep addressing you by a different IP address every day. Please note that the registration process at WP does not require you to provide any identifying information, you simply get a login password and user page.
I think your objection is silly (and it is growing very tedious). Indeed, I argue that you are pleading to apply a special exception for Tesla not granted to other historical figures. Historians infer misconceptions from statements by dead white males all the time! (Indeed, often simply stating these misconceptions clearly requires using language introduced after the subject's death.) Similarly, historians infer intent from verifiable actions all the time. See any printed biography. Or as a random example of a scientific biographical article from the WP, in the biography of Antoine Lavoisier, the article says he felt fascination for Maquois's dictionary and he tried to take credit for Priestley's discoveries. Plainly, it would be utterly absurd to go around demanding the removal of all reasonable inferences regarding states of mind from all WP articles! There would be little point to history as a subject if we didn't allow historians to make reasonable inferences from the historical record.
So the only issue, as I see it, is whether the judgement that Tesla did not understand relativity is reasonable. But of course it is: I already noted specific statements by Telsa which very clearly show misconceptions (common even today among baffled undergraduate students). Please let this drop; the point is not arguing over endlessly.---CH 00:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
To start, I will not revert this change. I'm sorry you feel my objection is silly and growing tedious, but I thought you would be use to long debates and wouldn't mind this one (It is wikipedia after all). Hopefully, you will be ok with continued talk. I will sign my posts here with (72.144.114.155) since I'm only editing the Tesla pages after seeing some wrong-doings. I did not wish to argue over it endlessly, but I could not see why you wouldn't allow the change.
I agree with the rewording and am satisfied with it, so I won't revert. Anyway, as a response to the above: It isn't about inferring misconceptions from our accomplished-dead-white-male ancestors, that is common practice. This specific inference, however, I found wholly inappropriate, especially in it's wording. The assumption made here was quite extreme and that is what I meant by "force-feeding the reader". I am not giving Tesla any special treatment in terms of understand him. I am, however, trying to be fair in those derived understandings. Saying Tesla was wrong (or rather, is wrong in terms of today's understanding of physics) is a near perfect change.
I don't know what you meant by this by the way: "(Indeed, often simply stating these misconceptions clearly requires using language introduced after the subject's death.)"
Lastly, I want to discuss with you the labelling of Tesla's "theorized" works as "pseudoscience". What do you think about this?

(72.144.114.155)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dynamic_theory_of_gravity/Archive_2&oldid=55583755"