Tesla vs. Einstein: The Ether & the Birth of the New Physics
Tesla vs. Einstein: The Ether & the Birth of the New Physics
By MARC J. SEIFER— Nikola Tesla (18561943) was an electrical inventor, well known as a competitor of arch rival Tom Edison. Where Edison’s inventions include the light bulb, the microphone in the telephone and the phonograph, Tesla’s inventions include fluorescent lighting, the AC hydroelectric power system and wireless communication. Tesla is therefore mostly billed as an inventor. The fact is, Tesla was also a physicist who studied in college such courses as analytic geometry, experimental physics and higher mathematics.1 In his early 1890s lectures at Columbia University, the Chicago World’s Fair and at Royal Societies in Paris and London, building on the ideas of Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin, Tesla demonstrated and discussed the structure of atoms as being similar to solar systems and wavelike and particlelike aspects to what later became known as the photon. Colleagues he lectured before and corresponded with included many Nobel Prize winners like Wilhelm Roentgen, J.J. Thompson, Lord Raleigh, Ernst Rutherford and Robert Millikan and other scientists such as Elmer Sperry, Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lord Kelvin, Heinreich Hertz and Hermann von Helmholtz. As far as I know, no standard text on the history of physics mentions Tesla even though these ideas would lead to Nobel Prizes when they were further developed by Rutherford and Bohr (with their solarsystem description of the atom with electrons orbiting the nucleus) and Einstein’s discovery of the photoelectric effect, which was equivalent to Tesla’s wave and particlelike description of light. However, another idea which Tesla discussed was abandoned by modern physicists, and that was the concept of the all pervasive ether. This led to a number of key differences between Tesla’s view of the world as compared to that of Albert Einstein (18791955). Tesla disagreed with the findings of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in a number of ways. As far back as the turn of the century, Tesla thought that he had intercepted cosmic rays emanating from the sun that attained velocities “vastly exceeding that of light.” In the last decade of his life he also claimed that these cosmic rays could be harnessed to generate electrical power. Tesla also saw radioactivity as evidence of the material body absorbing energy as much as it was giving it up. On a separate front, the inventor stated that the impulses transmitted from his turn of the century Wardenclyffe wireless transmitting tower would also travel at velocities in excess of the speed of light. He likened the effect to the moon’s shadow spreading over the Earth. It is very difficult to explicate the first two speculations concerning tachyonic (faster than lightspeed) cosmic rays and radioactivity. However, with regard to the third claim, this suggestion that he transmitted energy at speeds in excess of the speed of light can be discussed from a variety of points of view. As the Earth has a diameter of roughly 25,000 miles, and light travels at about 186,000 miles/second, one can see that it would take light approximately 1/7th of a second to circle the Earth. But does the Earth itself exist in its own realm, that by the nature of its size transcends the speed of light? For example, does the north pole, interact/exist with the south pole instantaneously? If so, in a sense the theory of relativity is violated as nothing, accordingly, can “travel” faster than the speed of light, yet the Earth’s very electromagnetic unity belies that theory. Taking this concept a step further, does the solar system, or galaxy, when perceived as a functional unit, interact with itself in some way that by necessity makes a mockery of the speed of light? (The galaxy, of course, is hundreds of thousands of light years long.) In fact, when we look at photographs of galaxies, we are seeing entities that are hundreds of thousands of light years long. Certainly these systems have an orthorotational stability, and/or angular momentum which exists as a gestalt (totality) in a realm that easily transcends the speed of light and therefore, in that sense, violates relativity.2 Concrete proof that relativity can be violated can be found in George Gamow’s watershed book Thirty Years That Shook Physics. Gamow, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, tells us that in the mid1920’s, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered not only that electrons were orthorotating, but also that they were spinning at 1.37 times the speed of light. Gamow makes it clear that this discovery did not violate anything in quantum physics, what it violated was Einstein’s principle that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Paul Adrian Dirac studied the problem. Following in the footsteps of Herman Minkowski, who used an imaginary number i, (the square root of 1) to be equivalent to the time coordinate in spacetime equations, Dirac assigned the same number i to electron spin. In this way he was able to combine relativity with quantum mechanics and won a Nobel Prize for the idea in the process (1966, pp. 120121). That was the upside. The downside was that the finding that elementary particles spin faster than the speed of light as a matter of course went the way of the passenger pigeon. No physicist talks about this anymore. What this means is that the entire evolution of 20th and nascent 21st century physics is evolving ignoring this key Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck finding. The ramifications suggest that elementary particles, by their nature, interface dimensions. Because they are spinning faster than the speed of light, the idea is that they are drawing this energy from the ether, a prephysical realm, and converting the energy into material form. Continue to read: http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/artic...henewphysics 
Re: Tesla vs. Einstein: The Ether & the Birth of the New Physics
This all pervasive "Ether problem" in relation to Einsteins special relativity e = mc^2 was well understood way back in the early 1970's when a young us physicist living in Australia one Stan Deyo published his book "The Cosmic Conspiracy".
The following lengthy quotation, setting out the speed of light performed my Mitchell Morley and later Mitchell Sagnac experimental error, and the erroneous assumptions this made which led to Einsteins work on relativity is from that book. " “Einstein's Relativity Error “The physical sciences in 1873 seemed to once again take on an air of stability as James Clerk Maxwell published his, 'Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism.' In this paper, he discussed electricity, magnetism, and electromagnetism as functions of waves in a fluid space (ether). His theory held popular support until the year 1887 when the two U.S. physicists AA Michelson and Edward W Morley performed their historic experiment with light. Their experiment (The MichelsonMorley experiment) was designed to use light as a means to determine if space were a 'fluid' as Maxwell's equations had assumed. The MM test results, however, appeared to deny the existence of fluid (or ether) space. To explain the 'apparent' failure of the MM test to detect the ether, Hendrik Lorentz and George Fitzgerald developed their now famous 'transforms' (The LorentzFitzgerald Transforms  1902) in which length contractions, mass increase and time lag were offered as explanation for the negative test result. Note that the Lorentz  Fitzgerald transforms still treated space as an inertial fluid, one undetectable by known technology. Einstein, who first began the formulation of his special theory of relativity in 1895, published it in 1905. He seized upon the Lorentz Fitzgerald transforms and the MM test results as evidence of a universal axiom: The velocity of light is (to the observer) the limit measurable velocity in the universe, (this does not mean it is the limit velocity in the universe however). The discipline details Einstein was faced with an apparent paradox, as to the nature of space. It behaved like a fluid in many ways  yet in others it behaved like an abstract, tencomponent Ricci Tensor from the Reimannian model of the Universe. The failure of the MM test to detect an ether was the final straw. Yet, hard as he tried, Einstein failed to remove the ether from E=MC^2. The following discussion should illustrate this point. Diagram One above is a schematic of the MM test. It was conducted on the basis that if an ether existed, the earth would be moving "through" it. Hence there would be a relative velocity between earth and the fluid of space. It was reasoned that by splitting a beam of light (F) into two parts; sending one out and back in line with the direction of the earth's orbital path, (to mirror A) from Half silvered mirror (G) and glass plate (D); and recombining the two beams in the interferometer (E) one should be able to detect a shift in the phases of the two beams relative to one another. This shift could accurately be predicted by knowing the velocity of light (c) And the velocity (Ve) of Earth through orbital space. Their reasoning was as follows (refer diag. 1, diag. 2a, daig, 2b): Assuming: c2 = a2 + b2C = velocity of light = velocity from G to B by fixed extraterrestrial observer S = distance GA = GB T1 = goreturn time inline (GA  AG) T2 = go return time at right angles (GBBG) T = .5 t T2 V1= apparent velocity from g to B by earth observer. Then the time (T1) is determined by:[s/(cve)] + [s/(c+ve))] = t1 which reduces to: (Eq.1) 2sc/(c2  ve2) = t1 Also, the time (t2) is determined by first solving for (v1) in terms of ( c ) and (Ve) using the Pythagorean Theorem (c2 = a2 + b2)…. Or, in this instance: (G to B)2 = (G to M)2 + (M to B)2 By substitution, c2 = ve2 + v12 Hence: (Eq.2) v1= (c2  ve2).5 Now, solving for the time (t)  which is the same over GM, GB, MB  of the GB trip by substituting s/t = v1 in (Eq.2) , one obtains: (Eq.3) s/t = (c2  ve2).5 rearranging: (Eq.3) t = s/(c2  ve2).5 Substituting: t = .5t2 Gives: t2/2=s/(c2  ve2).5 Or: (Eq.4) t2= 2s /(c2  ve2).5 by comparing the ratio of the inline goreturn time (t1) to the right angle goreturn time (t2) one obtains: (Eq.5) t1/t2 =[2sc / (c2  ve2).5 / 2s which reduces to: (Eq. 5.) t1/t2 = (1 ve2 / c2 )  .5 Now then, if the light source is at rest with respect to the other, one sees: (Eq 6.) ve = 0 Hence: (Eq 7.) t1/t2 = 1/ (1 0).5 = 1/1 = 1 Such a ratio as (Eq. 7) shows is exactly what each successive try of the linear M  M test has obtained…. (notice: Linear not angular!). Lorentz and Fitzgerald knew there had to be an ether; so they developed their well known transforms  an act which was in essence a way of saying, there has to be an ether…we'll adjust our observed results by a factor which will bring our hypothetical expectations and our test results into accord…. Their whole transform was based on the existence of ether space! Their transform, in essence said that length shortened, mass flattened, and time dilated as a body moved through the ether. Einstein came along in 1905 saying the Mitchellson Morley test showed the velocity of light to be a universal constant to the observer. Seizing upon this and the LorentzFitzgerald transforms, Einstein was able to formulate his Special Relativity which resulted in the now famous E = Mc2 …the derivation of which follows: Starting with (Eq.5) t1/t2 = (1 ve2 / c2 )  .5 The LorentzFitzgerald transform factor for (Eq.5) becomes (1 ve2 / c2 )  .5 (to bring t2= t1) giving t1/t2 an observed value of (1). Assuming Lorentz and Fitzgerald's supposition to be correct one should look at massinmotion as the observer on the mass see's it versus massinmotion as the universal observer sees it,… Let m1 = mass as it appears to the riding observer Let v1 = velocity as detected by rider Let m2 = mass as universal observer sees it Let v2 = velocity as universal observer sees it Then it follows (from Lorentz and Fitzgerald) that: (Eq. 9) m1 v1 not = m2 v2 So  to equate the two products. Lorentz and Fitzgerald devised their transform factor (1 ve2 / c2 )  .5 which would bring m1 v1 = m2 v2 to either observer,… yielding the following extension (Eq. 10) m1s1/t1 Not = m2s2/t1 or,… (Eq. 10) m1s1 Not = m2s2 then, by substitution of the transform factor s2 = s1(1 ve2 / c2 )  .5(assuming time is reference) into (Eq. 10.) one obtains: m1s1 = m2s1(1 ve2 / c2 )  .5 which reduces to: (Eq. 11) m1 = m2 (1 ve2 / c2 )  .5 To re evaluate this relative change in mass, one should investigate the expanded form of the transform factor (1 ve2 / c2 )  .5 (which transforms t1=t2) It is of the general binomial type: (Eq. 12) (1 b) a Hence it can be expressed as the sum of an infinite series: (Eq. 13) 1 + ab = a(a+1)b2 /2! + a(a+1)(a+2)b3/3! + …etc where b2 is less than 1 So  setting a = .5 and b = ve2 / c2 One obtains: (Eq. 14) 1 + (ve2 / 2c2) + (3v4/8c4) + (5v6/16c6) + etc… For low velocities in the order of .25c and less than the evaluation of (1 ve2 / c2 )  .5 Is closely approximated by, the first two elements of (Eq. 14): (Eq. 15) (1 ve2 / c2 )  .5= 1+ve2 /2c2 so (Eq. 11) becomes: (Eq. 16.) m2= m1(1+ ve2 / c2)…where ve less than .25c developing further,… m2= m1 + m1 ve2 /2c2 (Eq. 17) m2  m1 = .5 m1 ve2 /2c2 remembering energy (E) is represented by: (Eq. 18) E = .5mv2…( where ve less than .25c) One can substitute (Eq. 18) into (Eq. 17) giving… (Eq. 19) m2  m1 = E/c2…(assuming ve = v) Representing the change in mass (m2  m1) by M gives: (Eq. 20) M = E/ c2 Or, in the more familiar form using the general (m) for (M): (Eq. 21) E = m c2 (Note, however, that (Eq. 14) should be used for the greatest accuracy  especially where ve is greater than .25c) Looking at the assumption in (Eq. 19)…( ve ) was the term used in the beginning to represent the ether wind velocity… This means Einstein used fluid space as a basis for special relativity. His failing was in declaring the velocity of light an observable limit to the velocity of any mass when it should only have been the limit to any observable electromagnetic wave velocity in the ether . The velocity of light is only a limit velocity in the fluid of space where it is being observed. If the energy density of space is greater or less in another part of space, then the relativistic velocity of light will pass up and down through the reference light wave velocity limit  if such exists. Do not fall into the trap of assuming that this fluid space cannot have varying energydensity Perhaps the reader is this very moment saying, an incompressible fluid space does not allow concentrations of energy  but he is wrong  dead wrong! When a fixed density fluid is set in harmonic motion about a point or centre, the number of masses passing a fixed reference point per unit time can be observed as increased mass (or concentrated energy). Although the density (mass per volume) is constant, the mass velocity product yields the illusion of more mass per volume per time. Space is an incompressible fluid of varying energy density…in this author’s opinion! The apparent absurdity of infinitely increasing  mass and infinitely decreasing length as a mass approaches the light wave velocity is rationalized by realizing that space has inertia and as such offers inertial resistance to the moving mass. The energy of the moving mass is transmitted in front of it into the medium of space. The resulting curl of inertial resistance increases as negative momentum to the extent the mass is converted to radiant energy as it meets it’s own reflected mass in resistance. However  to the Star Trek fans, take heart… just as man broke the sound velocity limit (sound barrier) he can also break the light velocity limit (light barrier). By projecting a highdensity polarized field of resonating electrons to spoil or warp the pressure wave of the inertial curl, the hyperlight craft can slip through the warp opening before it closes,  emitting the characteristics of a shock wave. Such a spoiler would be formed by using the electrodynamic, highenergydensity electron waves which would normally proceed before the hyperlight craft, as a primary function of propulsion. When a similar function is executed by hypersonic aircraft, a sonic boom is formed as the as the inertial curl collapses on itself. In space, the light velocity equivalent to this sonic boom would be in the form of Cherenkov radiation which is emitted as a mass crosses the lightvelocity threshold sending tangential light to the direction of travel. Ether Existence Verified. In 1913, the rotational version of the linear M  M experiment was successfully performed by G Sagnac (see p 65  67 of The Physical Foundations of General Relativity by D.W. Sciama, Heineman Educational Books Ltd., 48 Charles St., London WIX8AH) In 1925 Mitchellson and Gale used the spinning earth as their rotational analogue to the linear M  M experiment. It also showed successfully that the velocity of light sent in the direction of spin around the perimeter of a spinning disc (or of the surface of the earth) varied from the velocity of the light sent against the spin. (Refer diagram 3 Below). Diagram 3 The error of the MM experiment is the test results are also valid for the case where there is an ether and it, too, is moving along with the same relative velocity and orbit as Earth maintains around the Sun. The Tea Cup Analogy can be used to explain the error. If one stirs a cup of tea which has some small tea leaves floating on it's surface, (obviously before the invention of the ubiquitous tea bag!) one notices some of these tea leaves orbiting the vortex in the centre of the cup. The leaves closer to the centre travel faster than those father from the centre (both in linear and angular velocity). Now, one must imagine oneself greatly reduced in size and sitting upon one of these orbiting leaves. If one were to put his hands over the edge of his tea leaf on any side, would he feel any tea moving past?…No! The reason is that the motion of the tea is the force that has caused the velocity of the leaf. One could not detect any motion, if both himself and the tea were travelling in the same direction and the same velocity. However, If one had arms long enough to stick a hand in the tea closer to either the centre or the rim of the cup  where the velocities were different to his own then he would feel tea moving faster or slower than himself (respectively). Also, if one were to spin his tea leaf at the same time as it orbits about the centre, placing his hands into the tea immediately surrounding his leaf would show inertial resistance against the spin moment of his leaf. Solar Tea Cup In the preceding analogy, the centre of the spinning tea (or vortex centre) represented the sun, the leaf: the earth; The tea: The ether; and the riders hands: the light beams of the M  M test. In essence, what Mitchellson, Morley, Einstein and many other scientists have said is that the M  M test showed the volocity of light was not affected by the earth's orbital motion. "Therefore" they have said, "we have one of two conclusions to draw"; 1. ) The Earth is orbiting the sun and there is no ether, or, 2. ) The Earth is not orbiting the sun and there is an ether but since the earth is not moving through the ether, the ether "wind" cannot be detected. Obviously, this conclusion is negated by the Earth's observed helio centric orbit. However, their reasoning should also have incorporated a THIRD option. 3) The Earth is orbiting the sun…and so is the ether; therefore, no ether wind could be detected in the orbital vector immediately in the vicinity of Earth. In other words, the test results cannot prove or disprove the existence of an ether…only whether or not the earth is moving relative to the ether! [/quote] Few people even today realize that such a fundamental error exists in special relativity. I would suggest that Tesla knew different! Einsteins own professor Dr Hendrick Lorentze  (The Lorentze Transforms) knew that Einsteins special relativity theorem was bunkum and always referred to it as 'The Einstein Theory' in mock derision, because had he got to peer review his students avante garde paper  it would never have made it to publication...in the esteemed German peer review journal Alannerlyne De Physique! In Fact Einsteins special relativity paper was NEVER peer reviewed! To this day this is no proof that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant and in truth mathematically there is ONLY one value for the speed of light that makes e=mc^2 valid and that is infinity. You can read more on this on my posts in the What is TIME, and Other thread about Einsteins error both within this science section of this forum. While I have already published this info now twice here people still post it just in a different format  as if it is somehow "new information". It maters not whether its attributed to Tesla or anyone else  the fact remains Einstein was wrong and his paper was never peer reviewed. He actually won his nobel prize for his peer reviewed paper of the photo electric effect.... yet he is remembered by history for "special relativity" which frankly is all bunkum that has led physics astray for the last 100 years! Not that anyone cares. Cheers 
Re: Tesla vs. Einstein: The Ether & the Birth of the New Physics
For those having trouble with understanding the complexity of the physics described above in my post  here is a simple "laymans explanation" (from some of my former posts here) that might help simplify it.
Quote:
Cheers! 
Re: Tesla vs. Einstein: The Ether & the Birth of the New Physics
And this spam posting is why this forum is a waste of everyone's time!

All times are GMT 6. The time now is 11:46 PM. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000  2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.