Nikola Tesla believed in the aether, a fluid that is everywhere that electricity and magnetism flows through.
Modern materialistic scientists have been trained to believe that the aether doesn't exist.
So, which is correct? Modern materialistic scientists or Nikola Tesla?
I have written before about the fraud of an experiment performed by Michelson & Morley, so i wont beat that horse (it should be dead by now) in this post. Suffice to say, that with this one experiment that only tested one set of hypothesis about the aether, was used to hamstring all of science for a century.
Far easier is to just point at things Tesla did, in front of many onlookers.
Things like creating a 100' long lightning arc. The longest on record in the Guinness Book of Records is 110' that was created by a substation melting down.
Tesla created a remote controlled boat before there was even radio.
And this is without all the fancy transistors that we use in our RC cars and planes.
I don't know a electrical engineer that could build such today.
Then we talk about Tesla's tower. Nobody has any idea of how it is supposed to work.
Every person i have seen try to copy it just think they are building a giant Tesla coil.
Unfortunately, since these people do not even look for the aethers, they will never find the tower's secrets.
If you remove the underpinnings of a science, then all the scientists who come after that will never discover anything. And if they do discover something, by chance, they will draw the wrong conclusions from it.
There are all kinds of effects that we use in modern appliances every day; this is just engineering. But, if you ask a scientists how they work, the will tell you its "unicorn particles".
And instead of looking at for the faults within science... we can't go there, its all "settled science"... we instead look at the things that Tesla "reportedly" did, and say, "since we can't do that, Nikola Tesla must have been a fraud and a scam artist."
I hope that we throw out "modern materialistic science" books sooner rather than later.
Do we really have to wait another century before science gets back to observing reality?