To say that all forces are manifestations of the same force and to say that "gravity doesn't exist" are saying the same thing.
If gravity is a manifestation of E&M then it doesn't exist as a separate force, but is just one way E&M expresses itself.
Now there are different paths to that statement. In the case of the SM one is a symmetry breaking and manifestation of a different force carrying particle (graviton) which can be (in a SUT) transformed into a photon.
In the case of other possible theories of gravity as E&M, gravity is a result of zwitterbegung or some other vibrational energy of the spacetime foam (or virtual particles) that preferences a resultant force in one direction.
Whether it's physically curved or not is debatable, however the equations predict the motion of gravity much better than what was in place before, at least up to the the mass of the Sun.
I always thought Tesla was against Einstein's theories because he didn't understand the math behind it.
I am not privy to Tesla's theory of gravity, though if true he would not be alone. Any SUT, or any marriage of E&M and gravity would by necessity either remove the requirement of the deformation of spacetime by energy (mass), and possibly even the idea of spacetime as a deformable medium, or it would require that it is E&M (+weak + strong) energy that causes the deformation.
Einstein never said "I'm right". Or "This is truth." No scientist ever does that. That is not a part of science, that is a part of media interpretation of science (by design of the lying system that is the media).
Everyone knows that GR and QM are not compatible, therefore either one, or both are wrong or incomplete. Einstein knew it, Feynmann knew it, Gell-mann knew it, Hawking knew it, Heisenberg knew it, Carroll knows it, Thorne knows it... EVERYONE knows it.
There is no ego there (or very little) within the community of researchers. It is only (or at least mostly) in the popular media that the idea of "right" and "wrong" or meaningful ego driven competitions exist.
My understanding is that Tesla didn't refute Einstein because his theory didn't marry E&M with gravity, but because he couldn't comprehend the math behind it.
Which is too bad since the math has been shown to be an accurate model for our solar system, better than what existed before.
Also, Einstein didn't base his theory on the principle that spacetime is deformable/warped/curved/etc. That was only an insight that came to him while he struggled to integrate gravity into special relativity. But I would submit that just because he leveraged Riemann's equations to help him with his own, it doesn't necessarily mean that spacetime is curved or anything (even though he concluded it did), but instead it shows that Riemann's equations, which were developed for measuring distances in a manifold of any dimensions, works for spacetime. It could be that nothing is curved, but the effects that gravity has on light behaves as if it is curved. There could be another reason for it we have yet to understand fully.
As for Tesla, I'm disappointed. He had an opportunity to build upon some great work, but he didn't. It seems to me he was the only one sporting any ego.
Yes, I am aware of the quest for the grand unification theory to incorporate gravitational force into the standard model.
But my understanding of Tesla's theories was that gravity just didn't exist.
To say that all forces are manifestations of the same force and to say that "gravity doesn't exist" are saying the same thing.
If gravity is a manifestation of E&M then it doesn't exist as a separate force, but is just one way E&M expresses itself.
Now there are different paths to that statement. In the case of the SM one is a symmetry breaking and manifestation of a different force carrying particle (graviton) which can be (in a SUT) transformed into a photon.
In the case of other possible theories of gravity as E&M, gravity is a result of zwitterbegung or some other vibrational energy of the spacetime foam (or virtual particles) that preferences a resultant force in one direction.
But I thought the context of Tesla refuting gravity was in his refuting Einstein's gravitation theory?
Whether it's physically curved or not is debatable, however the equations predict the motion of gravity much better than what was in place before, at least up to the the mass of the Sun.
I always thought Tesla was against Einstein's theories because he didn't understand the math behind it.
I am not privy to Tesla's theory of gravity, though if true he would not be alone. Any SUT, or any marriage of E&M and gravity would by necessity either remove the requirement of the deformation of spacetime by energy (mass), and possibly even the idea of spacetime as a deformable medium, or it would require that it is E&M (+weak + strong) energy that causes the deformation.
Einstein never said "I'm right". Or "This is truth." No scientist ever does that. That is not a part of science, that is a part of media interpretation of science (by design of the lying system that is the media).
Everyone knows that GR and QM are not compatible, therefore either one, or both are wrong or incomplete. Einstein knew it, Feynmann knew it, Gell-mann knew it, Hawking knew it, Heisenberg knew it, Carroll knows it, Thorne knows it... EVERYONE knows it.
There is no ego there (or very little) within the community of researchers. It is only (or at least mostly) in the popular media that the idea of "right" and "wrong" or meaningful ego driven competitions exist.
My understanding is that Tesla didn't refute Einstein because his theory didn't marry E&M with gravity, but because he couldn't comprehend the math behind it.
Which is too bad since the math has been shown to be an accurate model for our solar system, better than what existed before.
Also, Einstein didn't base his theory on the principle that spacetime is deformable/warped/curved/etc. That was only an insight that came to him while he struggled to integrate gravity into special relativity. But I would submit that just because he leveraged Riemann's equations to help him with his own, it doesn't necessarily mean that spacetime is curved or anything (even though he concluded it did), but instead it shows that Riemann's equations, which were developed for measuring distances in a manifold of any dimensions, works for spacetime. It could be that nothing is curved, but the effects that gravity has on light behaves as if it is curved. There could be another reason for it we have yet to understand fully.
As for Tesla, I'm disappointed. He had an opportunity to build upon some great work, but he didn't. It seems to me he was the only one sporting any ego.