Seifer to Time magazine: ‘Higgs field’ is ‘ether’

Marc J. Seifer, author of Wizard: The Life & Times of Nikola Tesla, is trying to set Time magazine straight about a few things, including the Higgs field as “ether” and Nikola Tesla’s views on it. Remy Chevalier today sent out to his email list the following letter-to-the-editors that Dr. Seifer wrote:

“You state in Hunting the Higgs, that ‘In 1964… Higgs came up with an explanation: the universe is pervaded by an invisible cosmic molasses.’ Higgs has gotten a lot of press for this, so much so that modern-day physicists have literally spent hundreds of millions of dollars looking for the Higgs boson, the ‘particle’ that gives matter its mass.”

“The Emperor’s New Clothes… all Higgs really did is re-name the ‘ether’ which, although accepted by every major physicist in the 18th century (e.g., Maxwell, Fitzgerald, Kelvin, Lorentz), now became relegated to persona non-grata when Einstein stated that light could travel as particles rather than waves in their journey, say, from the sun to the earth.”

“This has wrongly been concluded that Einstein did away with the so-called ether, but what he really did was say it was undetectable, which is a very different thing.”

“In 1934, Einstein’s adversary in this view, Nikola Tesla, revealed to Teddy Roosevelt’s grand nephew, 24-year-old Joseph Alsop, (fated to become a major journalist), one of his greatest secrets, namely that he believed that the sun was absorbing more energy than it was radiating (NY Herald, July 11, 1934).”

“Out of the hundreds of interviews Tesla gave and his numerous articles, Tesla never published his ‘dynamic theory of gravity’ which is what this was.”

“Having spent over 35 years studying Tesla’s work, I have been able to essentially piece together this hidden theory which explains what the God particle is (see my book Transcending the Speed of Light). The ether of course, exists. Just look at a picture of a galaxy and you will see that it is floating in something. You can call it the Higgs field if you want, but it is indeed the medium existing throughout all of space.”

“This ether most likely exists in a tachyonic (faster than the speed of light) realm. It oscillates at such a high frequency, that it remains undetectable by modern day methods. “

“What gravity is, according to this theory is simply the absorption of ether by elementary particles. During this process which involves particle spin, this on-going course of action is converted into electromagnetism. This simple idea explains Einstein’s 40-year quest, his dream of Grand Unification, namely the way to combine gravity (the influx of ether into matter) with electromagnetism.”

“There is no Higgs boson. It is not a particle but rather a process. Note the simple elegance to the theory.”

Marc J. Seifer, Ph.D.
author: Wizard: The Life & Times of Nikola Tesla

Share

Comments

  1. m. thompson says:

    Haven’t read Mr. Seifer’s book, ‘Wizard: The Life & Times of Nikola Tesla’, but of course he is correct in his assertion that the aether exists – most probably as Tesla’s concept of a compressable gaseous highly energetic medium.

    His brief explanation of this concept here has some good points, for instance his statement that there is no Higgs boson but rather we are looking at a process. However, he seems to make the classic error of mixing relativistic and quantum terms into his explanation of Tesla’s ideas which is not only a bad idea but poor logic. ‘Tachyonic’ seems to be one of these terms, and while using it as a description of the vibrational speed aspects of aether particles can be argued as accurately descriptive, it unfortunately introduces a mass of conceptual errors inherent to all that genera. Once it is used you are assaulted on all sides by particles, tachyons, that only exist at faster than light speeds; others, luxons, that only exist at light speed; and yet others, tardyons (?!), that exist only at below light speed… what a mess. This is not Tesla’s concept.

    The above highlights another common error in logic which is seen all the time: that of confusing vibrational speed of the particles that make up a medium: be it air, water, aether, etc., and the speed of movement of those constructions formed by those mediums: tornados, galaxies, rivers, Birkeland currents, stars, electrons, protons, etc. It is true that the particle vibrational speed influences the upper speed limit of constructs; however, there is nothing that says a construct can not sit still relative to the medium it is in or move at any speed from zero to the vibrational speed. For instance, the average vibrational speed of air molecules at standard conditions is somewhere around 500 meters per second, yet the highest wind speeds ever recorded are much less and most air is relatively still. This also touches upon the fact that vibrational speed is generally higher than wave speed through a medium: e.g. the speed of sound through air at the above conditions is approximately 350 meters per second or 70% of vibrational speed. That is due to the fact that the more tenuous a medium is the more acute the angle of interception between particles can be so the energy transfer path from one particle to another is further and further from that of a straight line – pool players should intuitively understand this.

    The second to the last paragraph of this article sums up what I see as errors in Mr. Seifer’s presentation, if not in his understanding of the subject. First off the statement: ‘“What gravity is, according to this theory is simply the absorption of ether by elementary particles. During this process which involves particle spin, this on-going course of action is converted into electromagnetism.” This can be considered essentially correct; however, without explaining just what is meant by ‘particle spin’, or in fact just what a ‘particle’ is according to Tesla, the reader will be left spinning in the wind. The same is true of the claim that this all involves electromagnetism. Basically correct assertions but unless the ‘process’ which rules all this is explained in detail in his book very few indeed are going to understand just what the devil he is on about.

    The last sentence in this paragraph: ‘This simple idea explains Einstein’s 40-year quest, his dream of Grand Unification, namely the way to combine gravity (the influx of ether into matter) with electromagnetism.’, is again a horrible mixing of concepts. If you are going to promote Tesla’s concepts and theories then stick with him and what he said. Tesla abhorred Einstein with good reason. Tesla already understood the relationship among the three orthogonal factors long before Einstein was brought in to subvert science with his meta-physical gibberish. To use Einstein here to bolster Tesla’s veracity simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of science at the best, or an cynical attempt to confuse readers at the worst.

  2. m thompson says:

    Correction

    Regarding my initial comment above, in the third paragraph from the bottom where I wrote: ‘.. the more tenuous a medium is the more acute the angle of interception..’, it should of course have read: ‘.. the less acute..’, or perhaps more properly yet: ‘.. the larger the angle of interception..’

    Such are the hazards of composing at the keyboard and hitting the Send key a trifle too quickly. mea culpa

  3. @ M . Thompson, I appreciate your corrections since they do help illuminate Seifers’ short summary of his view.

    1. Could you elaborate somewhat on how you see things reflecting on Tesla’s views ?

    2. And so if there are particles around us (sorry I find the term Tachyonic particles quite nice and easy to understand) that move faster than light, how do they fit in this whole Ether concept ?

    3. What about Tesla’s claim that cosmic radiation is all around us and free to be captured, no need for burning coal, gas or oil ?

    I will look into your writings Marc.

  4. gseattle says:

    Accepting confessions from you scientists of the 20th century who vilified your peers for uttering the word “ether”.

    And yet the effect continues, I don’t think the word appeared once in the movie Particle Fever about the Cern LHC search and apparent confirmation of Higgs-Boson.

    Strange, no? Is it in part mere human psychology with the association/crossover of “ether” with “alcohol”? Otherwise science ought to be all about freedom to theorize within reason, few boundaries.

  5. Thanks, belatedly, for the comment on my blogpost, Gary.

  6. Thanks Thompson, for clarifaction. I too am understanding all this, or beginning to at least.

    It’s funny, today mainstream science considers Teslas concepts and those of Maxwells original concepts as “metaphysical pseudoscience” but Tesla, would consider Einsteinian relativistic science and everything that sprouted out from it as “metaphysical nonsense.”

    It should be what the standard model considers “metaphysical” (such as the Aether) that is “standard” and the standard model what we consider to be pseudoscience. Oh hay we can’t explain why the expansion of universe or gravity/matter doesn’t behave the way it should according to our almighty constants and laws, so we’ll just add some more fancy equations and call it dark energy and matter!

    Doesn’t it feel good to know that, that we can think critically and look for alternatives to the mysteries we know in our gut instead of follow along the crowd? And not just in conspiracy theory or new age outlets either.

    Thanks for this article, and thanks Thompson for some clarification.

    And thanks to all of you looking for the REAL DEAL.

  7. Fiash, I would recommend watching some Eric Dollard video and Thomas Bearden’s ideas on Phase Conjugation, as well as Alexandersen- they all tried to understand and follow through on some of Teslas ideas.

  8. George rajna says:

Trackbacks

  1. […] [Seifer to Time magazine: ‘Higgs field’ is ‘ether’] […]

Speak Your Mind

*

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2013 · Website support provided by Host Bee · Log out