The Shape of Nothing

Space, Curved or Full?

 

In the early 20th century, Einstein redefined gravity not as a force, but as the curvature of space itself. Massive objects, he proposed, bend the geometry of spacetime—like a ball placed on a stretched rubber sheet. Planets orbit not because they are pulled, but because they follow the curves of this invisible fabric. Space, in this vision, becomes not a void, but an actor. A stage that warps. A geometry that moves.

 

It was elegant. It explained the motion of stars, the bending of light. And for many, it seemed to replace the need for a medium altogether. No aether. No hidden substance. Just spacetime, and its curves.

 

But Tesla was not convinced.

 

““I hold that the space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.”

— Nikola Tesla (1907)

 

Tesla’s language may sound arcane, but his argument boils down to a very intuitive metaphysical stance. To Tesla, space was not a thing. It was not capable of bending, rippling, or responding—because it was not a substance to begin with. He viewed the idea of space having properties as a category error, a confusion between presence and absence. In his mind, if you observe curvature, transmission, or pressure, you’re not observing “space”—you’re observing a medium. Aether.

 

Tesla believed that to ascribe behavior to space was to speak in paradoxes—to give attributes to nothing, and then wonder why everything seemed so uncertain. Tesla wasn’t denying mystery — he was refusing abstraction. He was saying: show me the mechanism. Show me the medium. Don’t ask me to believe in curving nothing.

 

Einstein’s curved spacetime offered a universe that could evolve from pure abstraction—a geometry unfolding from a void. Tesla refused this. He did not believe in emergence from emptiness. He believed in disturbance within fullness—a field already in tension, already waiting to be moved.

 A Creation Parable

 

Tesla’s objection was not just physical. It was archetypal. Modern physics tends toward creation from abstraction—a universe born from symmetry, probability, vacuum fluctuations, or spacetime geometry. But these are only sophisticated names for emptiness given agency.

 

Tesla’s view echoed something older. The biblical creation story begins not with nothing, but with formless waters—a depth, a vibrating sea of chaotic unordered potential. The Spirit hovers over that sea, and the Word speaks into it. Light is not conjured from a void. It is called forth from presence.

 

“Let there be…” is not an act upon nothing. It is a disturbance within the deep unknown, the primordial sea.

 

Tesla’s radiant energy, his vision of impulse, collapse, and field behavior, mirrors this pattern. Energy is not born from space. It is born from the collapse of tension within the field. Creation, for Tesla, was not a curve in a vacuum, but a pulse through presence.

 

Bruce DePalma and the Relational Nature of Motion

 

If Tesla challenged the idea that space could act, Bruce DePalma extended that challenge to matter itself. He proposed that inertia—the tendency of an object to resist acceleration—is not an intrinsic property of mass, but the result of an object’s relationship to a universal energy field.

 

In DePalma’s experiments, rotating masses exhibited anomalous behaviors: changes in weight, acceleration profiles, and energy output that defied classical mechanics. The implication was bold—that motion through space was not absolute, but conditional on how the object coupled to the underlying field.

 

To DePalma, inertia was not just resistance. It was response.

 

And that response pointed to the presence of something deeper—a medium that conferred mass-like behavior, but was not mass itself. What Newton called an innate tendency to remain at rest, DePalma saw as a signature of interaction with a substratum—a dynamic, invisible lattice he sometimes described as a “primordial energy field.”

 

Like Tesla, DePalma refused to believe that emptiness could be active, or that mass could move without reference to something beyond itself. He was not content to treat inertia as a constant baked into matter. He wanted to know: why does matter resist? And what is it resisting against?

 

In his view, mass was not a given—it was a tuning.

Inertia was not identity—it was relational impedance with the medium itself.

 

​