Tesla and Einstein Were Both Right
Tesla and Einstein By Miles Mathis
I will show in this paper that Tesla and Einstein were both right regarding the aether or ether. In the current state of the argument, Tesla and Einstein are seen to be on opposite ends of the question, in irreconcilable positions. The standard model interprets Einstein as being against all types of ethers, and they use the Michelson/Morley experiment to prove that. The alternative theorists, sometimes dubbed classicists, agree. They think that Einstein was against any and all possible ethers, since his theory has been sold as a mathematical abstraction.
Tesla and Einstein
But Einstein was only against the ether as a transmitter of light. Einstein did not believe that light required a medium for transmission, and he did not believe that light moved relative to the medium. Instead, light itself was the medium. The motion of light set the background. The speed of light was primary and the measurement of any other body was determined by that speed.
In fact, in 1920, at his inaugural lecture in Leyden titled “The Ether and the Relativity Theory,” Einstein said, “the ether concept has once more acquired a clear content. The ether in the general theory of relativity is a medium which itself is bereft of all mechanical and kinetic properties, but which has a share in determining mechanical and electromechanical occurrences.” Now, what does that mean? Well, notice that he uses the word “electromechanical”. He is telling us that the ether must now be considered a background for the E/M field; but that the ether is not a field itself.
Einstein calls his GR ether a “medium” here, but that is not really accurate, either. That is one of the reasons he later distanced himself from this quote. If the ether is bereft of all mechanical and kinetic properties, it cannot be a medium, by the normal definition of medium. A medium that is bereft of all mechanical and kinetic properties is a background, not a medium. But how could a background that had no mechanical or kinetic properties have a “share” in determining occurrences? In GR, it could do so only through its curvature. [Notice that Einstein thinks that curvature is not a mechanical or kinetic property of space. We will return to that in a moment.]
Tesla was usually not too concerned with theoretical questions like this, but as far as the question interested him, he agreed with Einstein. Tesla was not a supporter of Maxwell’s ether. Tesla found Maxwell to be ham-handed in many ways, and said so. The ether that Tesla believed in was an ether created by the E/M field. In fact, Tesla’s ether has much in common with my foundational E/M field, a real bombarding field emitted by all quanta and all objects. He stated that this field diminished with the square of the distance from Earth (or any spherical object), and my foundational E/M field does this (minus time differentials). He stated that this field combined with the gravitational field, and was often more powerful than it. I have shown this in my Cavendish paper and many other papers.
Einstein was a theorist, not an experimenter like Tesla. He did not know of the foundational E/M field. Almost no one except Tesla has known of it, even among other specialists in electricity. The field I am talking about has concerned only quantum physicists up to now (since it is the field mediated by their ridiculous “messenger photons”). So Einstein could not be expected to have included this field in his theories of the macro-world. But he never denied the existence or importance of the electromagnetic field, and he would never have denied the possibility that other unknown fields existed, even ubiquitous and powerful fields. He would only have denied, based on his theory, that they would be considered the “background of space.” As he showed, space has no background except the motion of light.
He is correct about this, and it is one of two major reasons I refuse to call my foundational E/M field an ether. The other reason is also historical. Tesla called his field an ether, since it was ubiquitous and powerful. It allowed many things to happen, and caused many things to happen. It was fundamental, as fundamental as gravity, or moreso. While admitting all that, I refrain from referring to my foundational E/M field as an ether because it does not fit the even older and more famous definition of ether as the mediator and facilitator of all motion. Tesla and Einstein
According to the 19th definitions, the ether was invented to explain the motion of light. It seemed to physicists at that time that light needed a medium through which to propagate, just as sound needed air through which to propagate. Especially as regards the wave motion, it was not understood how light could show this wave without a medium.
Using stacked spins, I have shown how light moves in a wave pattern without the need of any medium. The wave is internal to each photon, and the analogy to sound waves in air completely breaks down. The wave motion of light is not a pattern in a medium, it is real motion of each quantum. You will say, “Motion relative to what?” Motion relative to the previous position, or relative to the void, or relative to a graph you superimpose over the moving quantum. Motion does not require a medium, it only requires a background. That background is automatically created relative to previous positions. You don’t need a medium to describe the motion of quanta. You only need a mathematical or diagrammed background, and previous positions give you that.
In fact, requiring a physical medium for all motion is a reductio ad absurdum. Say that we do define Tesla’s “ether” as the medium. Say that we do define my foundational E/M field as the medium against which the speed of light is calculated. We obviously run into an immediate problem, since my field or Tesla’s is made up of some kind of photon or other emission, fluid or particulate.
At that point, you are defining the motion of light against a background of invisible E/M photons. But that brings up many questions: 1) Which photon is more fundamental? The light photon or the photon that transmits the E/M field? 2) How can you measure one against the other? Aren’t they both going c? Or, if they are not going exactly c in all situations, won’t they both vary in the same way for the same reasons? 3) If the light photon is moving relative to the E/M or ether photon, what is the ether photon moving relative to? Don’t we require a sub-ether as a background to the ether photon? 4) It seems we need something that is not moving to be our medium, but Tesla’s ether field, like my foundational E/M field, is made up of moving particles.
Hello,
My name is Michael Repko. I have been trapped in a false reality I created from early childhood do to disinformation given to me throughout my life. I recently had a spiritual awakening which has led me to seek my authentic self and re write all that I thought I knew. This open mind has led me down many new and fascinating roads in all facets of my life. I am not the most scholarly of people but I have a new found interest in this field. I have been doing a new type of meditation shown by Dr. Joe Dispenza. It is called Piezoelectric effect. I am able to activate the magnitite crystals in my brain, through the pineal glad. I feel a force field all around me, and this field causes me to either knock out or if i dont go all the way is takes me to the ground because i can no longer control my equilibrium. I believe there is a direct connection between what I am experiencing or feeling to your E/M FIELD. I don’t know if this makes sense to you but It does to me.
In my meditation I have been envisioning I am a part of all creation/energy. I focus on being energy in the moment and connecting.
I saw a video on Otis Carr and how he cracked anti gravty taking what he learned while apprenticing under Tesla while he worked at the New Yorker while Tesla was still alive. A large crystal was being shot by a laser in the middle of his craft. Supposedly our brains controlled his anti gravity flying machines connecting to this crystal. To me this makes sense because what I have achieved in my meditation.
I have a desire to work on this type of research and development. Do you know anyone or anywhere I can apply to get the schooling or hands on experience. Your work very much intrigues me and to me Tesla was the smartest man to ever live when it comes to energy and the study of phenomena.
Real quick, I want to throw out there that I no longer believe in the Bible, and its story of creation. But I believe we were created as a slave species by the Anunnaki who came to eartht to mind gold to save there atmosphere. I believe in the translations of Zehariah Sitchin. I believe the human species is part primitive homo erectus spliced with the DNA of the Anunnaki. Thus our evolution took a major advancement, however, as Michael Tellinger points out majority of our DNA was locked from us, as we only use 3%. We must continue to evolve as a species and not in the manner our slave so called genetic creators had in mind for us as there worker force.
I believe in GOD. And i have a conscious daily contact with the creator of all. And he has led me down this path of enlightenment since my awakening. Chemical dependency led to my pitiful, incomprehensible, demoralization of my character. Since almost becoming insane, and realizing my way and thinking wasn’t working, I decided to become become sober. And seek a relationship with my true creator and educate myself on what felt right and what makes sense to me through a faith in him. And this has led me to where I am today in 7 short months. I found Tesla and Sitchin early in sobriety and it has led me down this path. Many other people and events have helped but I like to give them a lot of credit on where I am at in my life…
Thank you for taking the time to read this, I hope to here from you.