The conundrum of their misunderstandings, in part, is that fields are mass-free (though gravity is sourced in mass, its field is massfree),
particle-free (of any variety), are not physical objects or subjects, however it is evidently and abundantly clear they have
physical effects without end; this of course is the very definition of Tesla’s ‘medium’, or Ether. While all fields witnessed in
phenomenal influences are archetypes of space, the Ether is not conjugate to, part of, dependent upon or relational to space, nor is
there Ether in space, rather space as a polarized dimensional measure of fields and the masses created by same. Space is only
relational to masses and magnitudes and the distances between them. To conceptualize a field as a region can only pertain to a
perturbation of the field as witnessed from phenomenal effects by same upon other bodies or as a region consubstantial to TEM.
Einstein and his disciples argue that fields and space are equivalent. What meaning would space have in a universe devoid of matter?
Whether gravitational, magnetic, or electric, we need ‘masses’ or ‘charges’ to talk about a field. This argument summarily debunks
Einstein’s irrational proposal that field and space are synonyms. Einstein was extremely weak on logic in all of his proposals. He was
not a very intelligent or rational individual; he was a mediocre mathematician, not a scientist. Magnets do not generate attraction and
repulsion by throwing particle showers collectively called ‘field’ at each other as proposed by QM. All fields are radial or polarized,
or circular, and either spatial or counterspatial depending upon their movements, instantaneous action at a distance is mediated
between any two objects connected by a pressure gradient of the Either in the field(s) of influence, including compounded fields.
Circular illogical statements made by and thru mathematical ‘science’ cannot be enjoined: “field: a region of space... region: a
portion of space…space: the infinite extension of field”. To employ space to define a field or field to prop up or define space or be
synonymous with space are all wrong, logically, and demonstrably. A field can never terminate in space nor is a field even part of
space itself, rather is a dimensional measure of a field or fields, of counterspace, and used contextually as an explicit reference of
influences of or by empirical objects as mediated thru or from a field. Some have, out of desperation to their materialistic mentalities
conceded defeat: “A field is an enigma, a question mark. A question cannot serve as an answer in Physics”. Einstein himself said that
so far as his general relativity is concerned, “space (actually spacetime) and the gravitational field are the same things”, this type of
‘thinking’ is pure idiocy of the highest order.
