Modern science accepts several things as facts, that aren't.
And assumes several things that are incorrect.
Such as, "the aether doesn't exist, M-M experiment said so".
* The test only tested for one set of assumptions
* There were other ideas of how the aether worked that weren't tested.
* They found something, and called it nothing
If we choose, like Tesla, to believe the aether exists, then all the structure built upon the aether not existing falls apart. Which includes most of the modern science book.
So, are modern scientists nescient or ignorant?
Why only believe something exists? Demonstrate it does to know it does. Otherwise the assumption could be wrong. Tesla or other scientists worked on assumptions to try to move forward. What makes other scientists worse than Tesla in that case? I f it's not known to be something real, then it can't be ignorance.
Ummm....
Gravity is not known to be something real.
The M-M experiment was falsely used to disprove that the aether doesn't exist.
Since then, all aether research has been poo-pooed and buried by all "real scientists".
However, aether research has proceeded and their hypothesis are far better and explain the universe around us far better, but they are still considered false by all the "real scientists".
In fact, most "real scientists" don't even know they exist.
So, aether theory has been shunned. It was falsely disproven, and written out of the science books.
Whenever i try to talk to a scientist about aether theory i get a knee jerk, don't want to know reaction.
I would like your opinion on whether this is ignorance or nescience.
But my point was that like Tesla, others can and do make assumptions to move forward. Gravity helps to explain or describe how things function in reality.
So yes, that would be ignorance if it was something that could be known, but it isn't, is it? There is an idea of aether, but is it demonstrable? Gravity decreases in it's effect when we get closer to outer-space. At least that word and what it purports has measurable effects.
Can you know that aether exists? "God"? I see the argument against the idea of aether as an argument against the idea of "God". You can't prove the non-existence of something usually, so the default position is that it doesn't exist until it can be proven to exist. If a model of aether serves to move people forward in their application of things in reality, it could be a model that is true, or just a model invented to try to make of how other things work.