All you really need do is take a look at the other articles listed on the main page to understand what Stuart is saying.
As far as the Tesla manuscript goes, its credibility is highly questionable on several levels. First and foremost was its 'discovery'. Seriously, do you buy into that? Secondly, why didn't this person do more to substanciate his story? He doesn't offer any images of the manuscript, nor does he attempt to seek out expert advise to help prove its authenticity. Why is that? Can you imagine what this person would be offered if the document was authentic? The beginning of the manuscript contains nothing in the way of startling information besides non-sensical rambling, although interestingly he doesn't 'translate' any of the second part of the manuscript which supposedly contains errors found in Einstein's theories. Divulging that information would have been preferable to what actually was revealed, as its accuracy and scientific reliability could then be measured against current thinking. Of course we're not privy to what those claims might be, if there are actually any to be had. Not too difficult to wonder why it reads like fiction.
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense. ~ Carl Sagan
"...man has an irrepressible tendency to read meaning into the buzzing confusion of sights and sounds impinging on his senses; and where no agreed meaning can be found, he will provide it out of his own imagination." ~ Arthur Koestler
I have read a lot about Nikola Tesla over the past few years. I think he was one of the most brilliant people of all times. I agree with what Magik said and what PS said before him. Until something more credible and substanciated comes along, it's nothing more than fiction.
I am also a great fan of Nikola Tesla and I have read numerous of his own notes, many of which were bound within, "The Inventions, Researches and Writings of Nikola Tesla," written by Thomas Commerford Martin and edited in part by Tesla himself. This book was first published in 1894. It's pretty interesting but to be honest in no part does this book "look and feel" like the rubbish claimed to be Tesla's on the aforementioed website.
However, it is known, through Tesla's own statements, that he disagreed with many of the prominent scientists of the time since his theories were based around the concept of the "ether", in one form or another, and Einstein was the father of relativist physics which could only work if there was no "ether."
Before we get into any debate about the above statement, Homer and I have probably had it before.
One of the simpilist ways to pick a fake like this is to check out the amount of description the author puts into the first paragraph .Is knowing what the book smelt like really an integral part of the story or is the Author just trying to set the sceen .