Most of the work in theoretical physics for the past 50 years or so (and starting a hundred years before that) has been the effort to show that E&M and gravity are the same thing (Superunification theories or SUT). Throw a stone and hit a physicist who thinks they might be the same thing.
By the "same thing" I mean different manifestations of the same force; a "symmetry breaking" of a singular force into different manifestations based on conditions. The standard model of physics is a mathematical model that is consistent with the idea that electricity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are all the same force under different conditions. Marrying gravity into that mix is the life's work of many a physicist.
To say that all forces are manifestations of the same force and to say that "gravity doesn't exist" are saying the same thing.
If gravity is a manifestation of E&M then it doesn't exist as a separate force, but is just one way E&M expresses itself.
Now there are different paths to that statement. In the case of the SM one is a symmetry breaking and manifestation of a different force carrying particle (graviton) which can be (in a SUT) transformed into a photon.
In the case of other possible theories of gravity as E&M, gravity is a result of zwitterbegung or some other vibrational energy of the spacetime foam (or virtual particles) that preferences a resultant force in one direction.
Didn't Tesla think there was no such thing as gravity and that it was due to electromagnetic force?
Is this the same Aether Michelson and Morley attempted to measure?
Yes, but their experiment was based on a false premise. They absolutely did NOT disprove the existence of the ether.
Good answer and I agree.
Lame. I would suggest going with Trumpternal's answer.
He had several readings from Edgar cayce
Most of the work in theoretical physics for the past 50 years or so (and starting a hundred years before that) has been the effort to show that E&M and gravity are the same thing (Superunification theories or SUT). Throw a stone and hit a physicist who thinks they might be the same thing.
By the "same thing" I mean different manifestations of the same force; a "symmetry breaking" of a singular force into different manifestations based on conditions. The standard model of physics is a mathematical model that is consistent with the idea that electricity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are all the same force under different conditions. Marrying gravity into that mix is the life's work of many a physicist.
Yes, I am aware of the quest for the grand unification theory to incorporate gravitational force into the standard model.
But my understanding of Tesla's theories was that gravity just didn't exist.
To say that all forces are manifestations of the same force and to say that "gravity doesn't exist" are saying the same thing.
If gravity is a manifestation of E&M then it doesn't exist as a separate force, but is just one way E&M expresses itself.
Now there are different paths to that statement. In the case of the SM one is a symmetry breaking and manifestation of a different force carrying particle (graviton) which can be (in a SUT) transformed into a photon.
In the case of other possible theories of gravity as E&M, gravity is a result of zwitterbegung or some other vibrational energy of the spacetime foam (or virtual particles) that preferences a resultant force in one direction.
But I thought the context of Tesla refuting gravity was in his refuting Einstein's gravitation theory?