Why do scientists hate Tesla?

Science v Nikola Tesla

I’m always getting messages asking why science is so opposed to Nikola Tesla. I decided to write a page to refer to. It’s about aether and inexpensive clean energy and antigravity so science is obviously biased. We need to look to history for answers. It’s all recorded in the somewhat shrouded often highly revised and sanitised, scattered history of the technological period leading up to 1900. During this period ALL the prototypes of ALL of our modern electrical technology were discovered devised prototyped and invented. Tesla was the leading light when it came to discovery and making discovery work and it kinda took the polish off the mainstream science myth.

Wiki editors who vehemently support mainstream science have unwittingly given us a record:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_electrical_and_electronic_engineering

When speaking of Nikola Tesla we must also remember Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, Oliver Heaviside, Charles Proteus Steinmetz and J J Thomson without whom we would have no electrical technology as we know it. Are the debunkers attacking them also? Weeeell it depends, Oliver Heaviside has always been unpopular among scientists because he was self taught – snobbery. Maxwell must be unpopular because his equations were hacked apart by Heaviside and Maxwell’s name attached to what was left. Faraday’s aether tubes are ignored and J J Thomson’s name is never mentioned regarding his aether work and his electrical anti-inertia. On the other hand Steinmetz is the best thing since sliced bread, Wiki loves him. The cord that binds them is that they agree with Nikola Tesla whereas the mainstream do not.

Tesla and the Luminiferous Aether

As can be seen from the Wiki timeline, the Victorian era was a hot bed of electrical invention and discovery unequalled in the years that followed. Tesla was the right man in the right place at the right time and he took full advantage of the information that was pouring in. He had foresight like no other and he could see the huge potential that the electrical theory of the day offered. He used it to great effect. The Aether Theory worked exceptionally well if you were prepared to accept an Electric Universe philosophy.

The science of Victoriana on the other hand, securely wrapped in a cloak of physics intransigence desperately needed to detect the aether directly to support it’s materialistic religion. It wanted an aether particle, a ball-bearing to ease the motion of its clockwork universe, a legacy of Newton a god-like figure.

As is obvious there was a schism between science and engineering, a gulf, a conflict that could never be resolved. And as is the convention when I write about science and technology there’s always a paradox: engineering is supposed to be the application of physics, but physics was and still is perfectly happy to abandon engineering and all the future benefits of electricity for the sake of a ball-bearing. This is what happened and as a result our technology is a hundred years behind the times. Nikola Tesla is a stark reminder of how physics got it so wrong. How the occult mathematicians led them into Diagon Alley.

This would be funny if it were not so sad:

The dark lord Einstein removed the aether at a stroke of his wand and transferred it’s attributes to the vacuum or space-time as he called it. He used Lorentz and Maxwell’s C equations among others to formulate his theories, forgetting that Maxwell’s equations were about an electric universe. The spectre of the aether would haunt him.

In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work on general relativity, Lorentz wrote a letter to him in which he speculated that within general relativity the aether was re-introduced. In his response Einstein wrote that one can actually speak about a “new aether”, but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether.
[So it’s OK to ‘invent’ an aether that moves. See also Michelson–Morley experiment] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Aether_concepts

“that aether” being the aether of the electrical pioneers, (mentioned above) and the bedrock of all of our electrical technology. I hope the reader is beginning to appreciate the absurdity of all this. There is no electrical technology that does not have its origin in aether theory.

“Einstein’s special theory of relativity owes its origin principally to Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetic fields.”
https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Einstein-Maxwell_equations

Einstein said: “I have now struggled with this basic problem of electricity for more than twenty years, and have become quite discouraged, though without being able to let go of it. I am convinced that a completely new and enlightening inspiration is needed.”

The “new and enlightening inspiration” was already there, Tesla et al had it and Einstein knew they had it but he wanted particles.

Hence no new ideas in electricity since Einstein, no Einsteinean electronics, no quantum electronics. Don’t be confused by quantum electrodynamics – the movement of particles that don’t exist. Nothing to do with electronics.

Electrons and waves

There is another bizarre chapter to this story: Dual Identity:
Wiki: Sir Joseph John Thomson OM PRS[1] (18 December 1856 – 30 August 1940) was a British physicist and Nobel Laureate in Physics, credited with the discovery of the electron, the first subatomic particle to be discovered.
In 1897, Thomson showed that cathode rays were composed of previously unknown negatively charged particles (now called electrons), which he calculated must have bodies much smaller than atoms and a very large charge-to-mass ratio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson

J J Thomson was the “aether man” who “discovered” the electron that played a large part in the destruction of aether theory and another paradox:
He said: … “the tubes of electrostatic induction which we shall adopt, we shall regard them as having their seat in the ether, the polarization of the particles which accompanies their passage through a dielectric being a secondary phenomenon. We shall for the sake of brevity call such tubes Faraday Tubes.

In addition to the tubes which stretch from positive to negative electricity, we suppose that there are, in the ether, multitudes of tubes of similar constitution but which form discrete closed curves instead of having free ends; we shall call such tubes “closed” tubes. The difference between the two kinds of tubes is similar to that between a vortex filament with its ends on the free surface of a liquid and one forming a closed vortex ring inside it. These closed tubes which are supposed to be present in the ether whether electric forces exist or not, impart a fibrous structure to the ether.”
—J J Thomson, Notes on Recent Research in Electricity and Magnetism (Ch 1)

It seems Thomson led a double life as far as his research was concerned, one recorded by Wiki and other supporters of mainstream science and another written by himself. His electron research supports the mainstream and his aether research denies it. How to explain how the combined effort of the physics community cannot find the aether but Thomson can?

Thomson’s opinion of the electron: “A toast, To the electron! May it never be of any use to anybody”.
I have a challenge: to find a situation where the knowledge of the electron has been useful apart from the fact it was used to set-up a new branch of science.
Another paradox: To discover the electron Thomson used the same equipment and components as we use today. The electron was discovered electronically without knowledge of the electron so why do we need the electron?

“Nikola Tesla Tells of New Radio Theories.” New York Herald Tribune, September 22, 1929.

“The idea of the atom being formed of electrons and protons which go whirling round each other like a miniature sun and planets is an invention of the imagination, and has no relation to the real nature of matter.

“Virtually all progress has been achieved by physicists, discoverers and inventors; in short, devotees of the science which Newton and his disciples have been and are propounding.

“Personally, it is only efforts in this direction which have claimed my energies. Similar remarks might be made with respect to other modern developments of thought. Take, for example, the electron theory. Perhaps no other has given rise to so many erroneous ideas and chimerical hopes. Everybody speaks of electrons as something entirely definite and real. Still, the fact is that nobody has isolated it and nobody has measured its charge. Nor does anybody know what it really is.

“In order to explain the observed phenomena, atomic structures have been imagined, none of which can possibly exist.” –Nikola Tesla

“My ideas regarding the electron are at variance with those generally entertained. I hold that it is a relatively large body carrying a surface charge and not an elementary unit. When such an electron leaves an electrode of extremely high potential and in very high vacuum, it carries an electrostatic charge many times greater than the normal. This may astonish some of those who think that the particle has the same charge in the tube and outside of it in the air. A beautiful and instructive experiment has been contrived by me showing that such is not the case, for as soon as the particle gets out into the atmosphere it becomes a blazing star owing to the escape of the excess charge. The great quantity of electricity stored on the particle is responsible for the difficulties encountered in the operation of certain tubes and the rapid deterioration of the same.”–Nikola Tesla

In other words there are no charged particles per se.
Thanks to : https://drnikolatesla.tumblr.com/post/148028036083/nikola-tesla-does-not-believe-in-the-existence-of

Wiki, Electric drift

…When a DC voltage is applied, the electron drift velocity will increase in speed proportionally to the strength of the electric field. The drift velocity is on the order of millimeters per hour. AC voltages cause no net movement; the electrons oscillate back and forth in response to the alternating electric field (over a distance of a few micrometers – see example calculation).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity

More History

It was the electric telegraph that originally gave birth to electrical engineering, and it was discovered that telluric (electric) currents flow through the Earth. In 1844 American inventor Samuel Morse developed telegraphy and the Morse code. He used a single wire with an Earth return to save on expenses and found it needed no batteries. For four decades many of the telegraph systems worked on free energy from the Earth. For reasons I can’t explain the scientific community set their faces against the idea of telluric energy. The telegraph was the first utility, there were no electric mains.

At around the same time Michael Faraday was researching electricity, something that interested Clerk Maxwell. In 1862 Maxwell published the equations bearing his name based on the practical experimental work of Faraday and others. Wiki tells us it was four equations but there were more. Maxwell’s equation’s were and still are a theory of everything ToE based on electricity and aether.

Oliver_Heaviside and the transatlantic telegraph cable

The reason for Wiki’s four equations is to do with the transatlantic cable and Oliver Heaviside: Wiki: Oliver Heaviside FRS (1850 – 1925) was an English self-taught electrical engineer, mathematician, and physicist who adapted complex numbers to the study of electrical circuits, invented mathematical techniques for the solution of differential equations (equivalent to Laplace transforms), reformulated Maxwell’s field equations in terms of electric and magnetic forces and energy flux, and independently co-formulated vector analysis. Although at odds with the scientific establishment for most of his life, Heaviside changed the face of telecommunications, mathematics, and science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside

Wiki: Initially messages were sent by an operator sending Morse code. The reception was very bad on the 1858 cable, and it took two minutes to transmit just one character (a single letter or a single number), a rate of about 0.1 words per minute. This was despite the use of the highly sensitive mirror galvanometer. The inaugural message from Queen Victoria took 67 minutes to transmit to Newfoundland, but it took a staggering 16 hours for the confirmation copy to be transmitted back to Whitehouse in Valentia.

For the 1866 cable, the methods of cable manufacture, as well as sending messages, had been vastly improved. The 1866 cable could transmit eight words a minute[61] – 80 times faster than the 1858 cable. Oliver Heaviside and Mihajlo Idvorski Pupin in later decades understood that the bandwidth of a cable is hindered by an imbalance between capacitive and inductive reactance, which causes a severe dispersion and hence a signal distortion; see telegrapher’s equations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_telegraph_cable

What Wiki fails to say due to bias is that Heaviside fixed the transatlantic cables. What he didn’t fix was Maxwells equations. Because he was working on a single problem and wanted his work to be understood by electrical engineers, he reduced Maxwell to four equations. No one ever finished the job and so what we have is Heaviside’s equations called Maxwell’s equations. Confused? That’s what this is all about.

The idea of electricity as a flow of ‘electrons’ in a conductor was regarded by Oliver Heaviside as “a psychosis”.

Charles Proteus Steinmetz

Wiki: Charles Proteus Steinmetz (born Karl August Rudolph Steinmetz, April 9, 1865 – October 26, 1923) was a German-born American mathematician and electrical engineer and professor at Union College. He fostered the development of alternating current that made possible the expansion of the electric power industry in the United States, formulating mathematical theories for engineers. He made ground-breaking discoveries in the understanding of hysteresis that enabled engineers to design better electromagnetic apparatus equipment, especially electric motors for use in industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Proteus_Steinmetz

Unfortunately Steinmetz said: “Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the ‘electron’, on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated” – C.P. Steinmetz (Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses)

 

Tesla, Heavyside, Maxwell, Steinmetz and Faraday created our entire electrical system on the theoretical basis of aether. Aether theory was based upon Maxwell’s electrodynamics, this all-encompassing aether was endowed with energy and hence very different from the nothingness of empty space or spacetime as Einstein called empty space. Space is the absence of matter and absence cannot be engineered.

Tesla rode the crest of the wave that was electrical discovery. He saw the endless possibilities of the research like no other. His mind engineered them. When he revealed his intent to supply free energy his financiers balckballed him and he was universally banned from getting finance for the rest of his life. This was also applied to academic science with the threat of funding withdrawal. The bottom line is, it was about the luminiferous aether, the source of all our electrical technology.
This is what scared the sh** out of them. Once the aether was gone there would be no free energy and no antigravity, which is exactly what happened.

 

There has been no scientific research into the true nature of electricity for a hundred years.

 

 

 

7 thoughts on “Why do scientists hate Tesla?

  1. Excellent.

    Never expected to get this article so soon.

    Can you write an article exposing lazy arrogant armchair theorists like Bill Gaede? Because his nonsense is running out of hand.

    Like

    1. So many posters ask this question I decided to do a page to refer to. It’s not yet complete and I was a little concerned about repetition – I’ve done most of this stuff elsewhere on the site.
      As for Bill Gaede, such people never have an original thought and they rely on science to fill their memory banks. It’s pretty pathetic but the education system churns-out dummies who think memory repetitions are wisdom and intelligence. Anyone challenging their world is blasted with recall.
      I’m sure I’ve done more than one page on the subject but I’ll check.

      Like

      1. CADXX, Keep up the excellent work, and I was very interested by your Eric Laithewait pages, as Eric was a friend of mine, and one of the few genuine scientists of recent times, and was treated like a bag of shit by Imperial College and the Royal society for his honesty!!!. The whole academic system in the USA and UK is pure corruption, and simply a monster cash cow, extracting huge public grants to feed their luxurious lifestyles. The Hadron Collider and NASA are prime examples of this. We need to get this into the press to wise the public (taxpayers who unwillingly fund this science corruption) up on this sad state of today’s so called science. This is why no new science has emerged since Einstein. Regards David Hine

        Liked by 1 person

  2. A fascinating article and so very true. Today’s UK and US establishment ‘science’ is a closed shop affair, designed to extract massive grants from Governments and student money, so these closed shop so called scientists can live luxurious lives financed by the grants and the fake Nobel system. I have direct proof of this corruption. I devised an equation that gives the value of Hubble’s Constant. It is :- 2 X a megaparsec X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21 = 70.98047 K / S / Mpc. For this equation, a parsec is the standard unit of 3.26 light years, and C is the speed of light in the Aether. C, as you so rightly said, belongs to Maxwell’s Aether equations. The work in question is ‘The Principle of Astrogeometry’ on Kindle.
    This equation was put before a Professor at Imperial College, London. This Professor was initially interested in this, and he re wrote it in a format that is normally acceptable to the scientific establishment. He has had papers published, so is not a novice to their strange ways.

    After submitting this for publication, he was refused on the grounds he should not be doing such stuff, and was ‘persuaded’ to drop it, or his career would be made ‘difficult’, and he labelled a heretic (remember Eric Laithwaite, who was also banned by Imperial !!!). If you seriously want to follow this up, I will reveal the identity of that ‘so called Professor’, as he turned quite nasty once he was ‘got to’ by his money masters!!
    I believe science must be honest, and not dominated by their closed shop grant grabbing ambitions. I will send a copy of this to that Professor, and if I do not receive any response from him, and if you wish to expose these ‘scientific criminals’, we can take this further. I have access to the Daily Telegraph who may like a bit of scientific corruption scandal for public airing. Please let me know if you are up for this?
    The corrupt scientific institutions need to be exposed for public scrutiny, in order to preserve scientific integrity. Regards, David Hine.

    Like

    1. Hi again David
      Interesting post. Thanks for the praise of my article, it’s not finished yet. As I said in a previous reply, I wrote it because posters often ask about bias against Tesla. Something to refer them to. I was a little worried about repetition as I’ve done most of this stuff on other pages.
      As for the professor, I would like to look at the circumstances of his descent into nastiness. However I don’t see the Daily Telegraph as being a reliable vehicle. Mainstream media is a sock puppet of propaganda and lies, it likes fake news. Indeed the corrupt scientific institutions need to be exposed as do a number of others. The rule of law is under attack in the UK as is free speech and it’s unlikely anyone will get a fair hearing. There’s another David I know of who is now imprisoned for treating cancer successfully. We live in interesting times.

      Like

  3. Hi CADXX, I believe you are the same guy that puts up the fascinating stuff about Nikola Tesla and his downfall due to the establishment, and other science corruption on YouTube. A group of us are using Nikola Tesla antennas, (that are much better than the usual Marconi methods) which are banned Nikola Tesla technology!!! Yes, you are right about the ‘allowed’ media towing the official line. However, they don’t yet have full control of the internet, and many banned TV comedy shows of the 70’s that are now deemed politically incorrect are freely available there, sent in by the public. So we do have a voice that cannot be silenced, as long as it does not break serious laws, or contravenes the Military Secrets Acts. Science research that the establishment don’t like (because it does not suit their corrupt agenda) breaks neither of those laws, so YouTube and Amazon Kindle are good places to put stuff. The UK scientific establishment have banned me from entering their premises, simply because of ‘The Principle of Astrogeometry’ (Kindle). I got thrown out the door by security for presenting Astrogeometry!!! Because it’s an Aether based treatise (like Maxwell’s equations), and also solves the Hubble Constant value questions, which means the universe was created, runs counter to their false science, particularly the cosmology area. Someone from NASA tried to get Astrogeometry removed from Amazon, but an Amazon agent said NASA cannot do that because Astrogeometry breaks no US or UK libel laws. He did manage to get a bad comment put there, but that has actually created more interest. I am up for exposing it all in public if you are, and your friend being jailed wrongly also needs to be fully exposed!!!
    If he did not break any libel laws against individuals and / or companies, there are no legal reasons for his being jailed. I will also support any campaign for him if he did not commit any libel. They may have nailed him with libel accusations. We must avoid that pitfall, Best regards to you, David Hine.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.