Talk:Dynamic theory of gravity

message: This article was terribly disorganized, so I have cleaned it up and tried to make it read more gracefully and to make it more WP:NPOV.  One important disclaimer: I am worried about the provenance of the alleged 1937 press statement by Tesla. I took the original authors at their word, but the only source I can find for this statement is a website which I would consider extremely cranky.  Unless someone can produce a scan of a notarized photocopy of a contemporary newspaper from the vault, I thing we must regard the quotations from this statement as unverified (but plausible).  Hence the occurrence of allegedly in the current version (hopefully not too distracting). ---CH 09:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The press statement seems to mesh with , for what it's worth. It would indeed be good to have some verifiable sources. - mako 09:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That NYT article does indeed exist; I just checked through ProQuest. The full press release is another matter. - mako 07:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: To be fair, these arguments are not easy nor without error
could somebody give comments on that ? It is supposed to mean that the original arguments of Einstein had some errors or that there are true errors when asserting that free bodies have a geodesic motion ? thx! LeYaYa
: "without error" seems to be misleading, and probably wrong, so I've removed it William M. Connolley 12:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, 72.144.71.99, I liked most of your tweaks, but WMC is right; you misunderstood what I meant there.  When I find time to write decent articles on EIH and related background, you'll see more clearly why I wrote these arguments are not easy but added they are regarded as essentially correct.  ---CH 05:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Precision? 

message: "feel anticipates Ernest Rutherford's plum-pudding model of the atom"
Rutherford's model of the atom superseeded the "plum pudding model" where the +ve and -ve charge were evenly spread out in the atom, with the current model of electrons orbiting a nucleus. Have edited page accordingly.
Also "'infinitesimal world, with molecules and their atoms spinning and moving in orbits, in much the same manner as celestial bodies carrying with them static charges', which some feel anticipates Ernest Rutherford's nuclear model of the atom" 
I do not believe this refers to a model of the atom but of atomic interaction... just a thought, im not going to edit "some" people's opinion without feedback
Wow that was a v fast edit thanq --AjP 09:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Error 

message: The page stated that Tesla felt energy could not be obtained from nuclear fission. This amounts to a widespread but nonetheless completely incorrect misinterpretation of nuclear reactions. The mass-energy relationship E=mc2 is NOT necessary to explain nuclear reactions. In the absence of SR, one could still say that nuclear fission occurs, but that the rest mass of the products would not be different.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.88.44 (talk • contribs) 
:Just to be clear: the misconception was Tesla's. ---CH 19:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another error 

message: It is a pity that Tesla's notes are lost, as he tended to bring a fresh look and originality to the discussion, rather than simply regurgitating the current dogma.  Having achieved the 'impossible' of an AC electric motor, and together with Westinghouse, proposed AC distribution networks when most of his contemporaries were wasting their time with highly impractical DC systems, his opinion ought to carry some weight.
Such an intellect should not be dismissed lightly.  Even if quite wrong, I'm sure he would have brought some original speculation to what has become a highly dogmatic, practically stagnant, area of debate.
At worst he may have sinned against the great god relativity, but then so did Einstein fall by the wayside in refusing to accept the quantum mechanics doctrine.  Yet Einstein was granted absolution by the scientific establishment.
Perhaps it was in his character that he needed to be out of step with his contemporaries, so that he refused to accept the current wisdom as a matter of pure obstinacy, who knows?
The argument that he was wrong because general relativity is 'right' has absolutely no place in science. We have no way of knowing what experiments he proposed to disprove general relativity, or what their outcome might be.
This article needs to restrict itself to the facts. Gordon Vigurs 10:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Shall we replace it with the simple statement that "nothing of any significance is known of teslas theory"? William M. Connolley 21:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed it is. But Nikola Tesla isn't William M. Connolley 09:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation and Guesswork

message: The Life of Nikola Tesla
by John J. O'Neill (1944)
Complete On-Line Volume
http://rastko.org.yu/istorija/tesla/oniell-tesla.html
Fourth Part
SELF-MADE SUPERMAN
http://rastko.org.yu/istorija/tesla/oniell-tesla.html#_Toc496780563
134.193.94.173 19:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PRODIGAL GENIUS

message: If you are not a scholar of physics, this article dosen´t explain anything. It does not explain the theory nor how it has been criticized. Sorry, I love you all, more than anyone, you who are working on wikipedia!! But it is also my duty to say when something is wrong, even if I can´t improve it myself. 82.181.229.8 11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article, hopefully, points out that the theory has no known content. What more is there to say? William M. Connolley 11:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the only purpose of this article is to answer the question, "What was Tesla'a dynamic theory of gravity?", which is linked from the Tesla article.  It seems to say about as much as can be said, under the circumstances.  We could add that it has the earmarks of a crackpot theory, but that would probably violate the NPOV policy. — DAGwyn 22:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is very very bad! 

message: Moved from my talk page, in response to my edit comment that there is little fact to it:
: Well then let it be short or better, merge it with Nikola Tesla. Still, its not encyclopedic for someone to be analyzing whether the theory knew what it was talking about or even existed. A simple "Tesla claimed to make theory blah. It was supppose to do blah. [Present quotes from articles]. Nothing more is known. Done." would do fine. Horvat Den 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes are fine. What's messy is how the article looks like its giving people a modern physics lecture. Horvat Den 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its trying to give some modern perspective on the theory, which seems useful William M. Connolley 23:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You can't slander dead people William M. Connolley 13:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorten? 

message: Regardless of how many people can agree/disagree about tesla's history he did form a DTOG, and that is worth respecting. You are talking about a man who had a photographic memory and could work with objects in his mind at a very high level. DTOG needs to stay at an article because it is part of tesla's history. The article already specifies that it is an "alleged" theory, and that is discredit enough. 
Don't let the government wipe his history out, that seems to be the common trend of this man's incredible work.
Oh you're just worrying too much.  His history won't be wipe out, it is just the begining.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.142.236 (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DON'T DELETE IT! TOO MUCH OF TESLA'S HISTORY IS ALREADY LOST!! 

message: An intellect who explored the unknown realms of science. Who worked for the greater good of the society. Although history does not know much of him, the little it does, is invaluable and precious.
I am just a small part of this large community but I hope my thoughts resonate with others.
I am proud to have this little piece about the man, the myth, the legend,Nikola Tesla.
I strongely urge all the members, please do not delete this magnificent article. 
Thanks
 Sudeep944 (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are proud to have a small part of a greater history.