Cases for Tesla being insane?

[CTG Labs]

There is a fine line between genius and insanity.  To be that clever your mind has to be like that!  Maybe he was insane, but look what he gave us that we still use today, he changed the world!

Most of the great minds have been a bit messed up, being loners or having complusive disorders, you cant be normal and be a genius!  But then what is normal, I'm not!

D.

[kokomoj0]

1) Used to "relax" near a million volt coil...
2) He accepted funding from these two scumbags...
Morgan

Westinghouse


These two dirty bastards are the reason things are the way they are today.
Those two examples are definitely crazy things I wouldn't have done...

Mostly "bastard" number 1!  That is as far as the continual decline of the republic. but how could have he known......

[d3adp00l]

Insane people say things and do things that normal people can't, or rather choose not to understand. When you have an understanding of a subject far beyond anyone around you (and you are a bit arrogant) it is sometimes (usually) a waste of time to explain things in an inacurate way so that people can grasp what you are saying. Tesla was brilliant and without his ol JP morgan wouldn't have the coil to spark a gasoline engine, we wouldn't have 90% of the tech we do today without Master Tesla. However Tesla was a bit arrogant and very efficient in everything he did (though his efficiency was not always understood) and for his to waste his valuable time making the low brow morons around him understand what he knew would be a grand waste of time.
     So what came out of Master Tesla's mouth was not understood by those around him and to them sounded like the ramblings of people who were really insane, in conjuction Master Tesla cared more for his work and contributions than his own monetary gain, which is always misunderstood by the greedy masses. Their conclusion we can't understand what he says and he does things that doesn't match our value system, he must be insane. When in reality the moronic masses whose views lead to their own demise are the truely insane, they can't even see how working together for a goal higher than money/power will give us all a better life, and not just benefit a few.
       I know why old men mumble, and I know why Master Tesla did not.

[raburgeson]

He had views against war and poverty of course they called him insane. They were right there to rob his work when he died, people that worked with him said he had 5 times more unpatented inventions than he did patented. I figure they had space travel immediately after they stole his work. He had his flying car notes and sketches completed. He just didn't want them exposed to anyone that had control of weapons.

[Prophmaji]

google search for 'the fulford ultimatum", and read a bit about ole' JP Morgan. One of those scumbags that..if he had been butchered at birth..the world would have been a far better place.

In those days, there was NO MONEY OF ANY KIND from anyone BUT the very rich, in terms of securing funding of any kind for research and development. This is the sole reason that Tesla worked with any of these folk. Morgan purposely cornered Tesla, and purposely shut him down. GT Fulford, a Canadian billionare contemporary of Morgan and Westinghouse, was going to fund Tesla's Radiant energy system and was about one week away from buying General Motors and starting the whole thing..when he was assassinated via the first vehicular homicide.

At this point, stop worrying about the old dead scumbags. Work on helping inform the public of the scumbags we have right now.

As for Tesla seeing things, yes that is true.

It is also spectacularly CORRECT AND RIGHT!!!!

You see..the closer you are to true inter-dimenional reality and the truth, in terms of zen or Buddhist KNOWING..the more you will see things like Tesla did.

Tesla said that when he closed his eyes, he saw giant, complex, rotation, evolving, everchanging mandalas.

Have you ever seen photos of a Monk who has the 'knowing' of reality, complete? Do you remember the look on their faces in the photo? And..then..ask yourself..what is the look on the face of Tesla? Identical.

Well, that is the nature of what can be seen, when the truth of multidimensional existence is seen by a mind that is equipped to understand it! Tesla was not only extremely intelligent, he was also psychic. Highly psychic. This much is true as that is what it takes to see the things he saw and bring some of it back. He could see the underlying truth about the interconnectedness of all things in the are of this dimension's 'physical reality' To show what I mean, here's a post of mine, from the 'white gold' thread in the news area:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The alchemical process is as outlined in the bit I last wrote. Apparently, it is that simple. No-one ever said it was difficult to make. What IS properly said, is that fools playing with it can damage or kill themselves playing with it, if they are unprepared. And don't be so damned foolish to think that you can make it, wash it properly so it is clear of any remaining effluents (mercury!!), and then consume it...without going to a place that others will see you as being completely 'mad'. In all seriousness, you might do great harm to yourself.

Here's the issue: Physiologically speaking, when part of the hard wired psychology of the mind needs be reformed, to align with new mental paradigms, the mental and thus chemical aspects of mental 'reformation' can be and ARE SEVERE. A mental 'death' is a real as a physical one. In other words., for you to get your 'fecal matter all in one spot and newly arranged', you LITERALLY MUST die a internal psychological death, thus a rewiring of the mental process in the physical sense and that...on the psychological interpretation by your inner self, WILL be understood as a TRUE death. This is besides all the issues of being able to understand the essence of multidimensional flow and temporal adjuncts to such issues. Multiple timelines, past lives, past existence, astral projection, dimensional projection, temporal anomalies, precognition, future life possibilities, other beings or 'aggregate spirits', singular spirits, etc. And on and on. For example, it can become powerful enough to manifest itself in precognition that shows up as visions of upcoming events, places in multidimensional time..that are 'nexus' points for multiple universes..that show up as 'ripples' in time, that can also be seen from NOW as they are future event paradigms.  What I mean is that a given event may span multiple universes in similar points of possibilities... and that 'event' can be seen as a ripple that stretches backward in time...and happens to be in the particular 'dimensional layer' that the thing you like to call YOU exists within. And you can, if properly prepared, see this event as a reflection, from the future. And it will NOT be exact, it cannot be, as it represent only POSSIBILITY..that becomes far more determinate as you move closer to the event. And your 'interpretation device' that thing you call yourself, or your mental aspects, will impart particular spin or feel into what you 'see'. Only one tiny aspect of it. There are other aspects of manifestation of multidimensionality that are far more interesting and enlightening.

Salvia Divinorium is one material that can illustrate such to a given person. TO give yo an idea, those who have tried such and basically passed out (multiple tries of the mint plant) and returned with ZERO understanding or 'opening of doors' to other possibility, are especially NOT mentally prepared or wired to understand such things. Basically, un-illuminated ground pounders who really don't understand much and are extremely unwilling to attempt to do so.

Be careful here. The vast majority of you, if you were to 'get there' it would be like a 5 year old suddenly appearing at the wheel of a 2-ton car, driving down the freeway at 120mph. A guaranteed disaster!!!

Be it known: NOTHING in your existence today, PERIOD...is even remotely adequate to even begin to illustrate the mental shift that a true understanding of multidimensionality can and will provide. Words, existence itself, is woefully inadequate to even begin such descriptions.

An article that, in the scientific sense, that illustrates that science and religion are once again, about to re-converge to their origins. Nothing new there. They always do.

written in the text I am about to provide, is the problem, as usual. People can't even being to THINK about it without loosing their minds. This is why the Buddhists teach one-on-one. People left to their own devices under the effects of such..can.. and usually do self implode.

One way to say it, one way out of thousands..is to say it is like teaching kittens to swim..by drowning them. Obviously, you are the kitten. Do you think you can swim? Part of the problem is the residual aspects of the monkey brain which interfere with the process. Fear. Fear of loss of physicality, which arises from your current reality paradigm, and the overreach of the hindbrain, in the mechanistic sense of physical reality. 

Basically, I'm talking about largely gaining complete control of the subconscious mind, and all aspects of multidimensionality at the same time. That's a huge endeavor, to say the least. Which is why it should be tackled in stages. This is what the ancient schools, Buddhists, etc all do. Consuming the white gold is likely to be like a crash course, largely akin to being thrown off the roof of a 120 story skyscraper. You'd better figure it out before you hit the ground.


http://freespirits.chosenones.net/showthread.php?p=53850

Parallel universes make quantum sense

19 September 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Zeeya Merali

IF YOU think of yourself as unique, think again. The days when physicists could ignore the concept of parallel universes may have come to an end. If that doesn't send a shudder down your spine, think of it this way: our world is just one of many. You are just one version of many.
David Deutsch at the University of Oxford and colleagues have shown that key equations of quantum mechanics arise from the mathematics of parallel universes. "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science," says Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California at Davis. In one parallel universe, at least, it will - whether it does in our one remains to be seen.
?This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science?

The "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics was proposed 50 years ago by Hugh Everett, a graduate student at Princeton University. Rather than apply one set of rules to the subatomic quantum world and another to the larger-scale everyday world, as physicists tend to do, Everett wanted to apply quantum mechanical equations to everything. This had some startling consequences.
According to quantum mechanics, particles do not have set properties before they are observed. Instead, particles are described by "wave functions" representing many mutually contradictory properties. It is only when an observer measures a property that the particle somehow settles into one of these multiple options. The paradox is exemplified by Schr?dinger's cat - the famous thought experiment in which a cat in a box can be said to be both alive and dead. It is traditionally thought that the act of observation, opening the box to check the cat, is what forces it to settle into a state, living or dead.
If, as Everett argued, quantum mechanics is applied to the whole universe, then it too should exist in a multitude of separate states. There would be a "multiverse" of parallel universes - one for every physical possibility. So when you open the box holding Schr?dinger's cat, the universe splits, forming two new "yous" - one whose future involves viewing the live cat and the other who sees the dead cat.
Dismissed by the scientific establishment as ridiculous for decades, the many-worlds scenario may at last come in from the cold thanks to Deutsch's work.
The biggest criticism levelled at many worlds was that it seemed to make a puzzle about the outcomes of quantum experiments even worse. Physicists can predict the probability of getting a certain outcome from a quantum experiment from the square of its wave function, according to the Born rule. Nobody can explain why this rule works, it simply fits with experimental observations. The problem was there seemed to be no place for the Born rule in the multiverse. In fact, there didn't seem to be any space for any probabilities at all, says Deutsch.
"You toss a coin, but what does it mean to say that the probability of it coming up heads is 50 per cent?" Deutsch asks. "According to Everett, both outcomes must happen."
In the mid-1990s, Deutsch set out to put the uncertainty we see in quantum mechanical experiments back into the many-worlds scenario. Now, with additional work by Simon Saunders and David Wallace, also at Oxford, he believes they have succeeded. The trick is to examine a quantum experiment while excluding probability theory and accepting the many-worlds interpretation.
The multiverse has a branching structure, created as the universe splits into parallel versions of itself. The thickness of the branches can be calculated solely using deterministic equations, getting around the uncertainties usually associated with quantum physics. What the Oxford gang found is that the branching structure exactly reproduces the peculiar probabilities predicted by the Born rule. The branching also gives the illusion of probabilistic outcomes to measurements.
Deutsch believes this solves the problem of the origin of quantum probability once and for all. "Probabilities used to be regarded as the biggest problem for Everett, but ironically, they are now its most powerful success," he says.
"We've cleared up the obscurities and come up with a pretty clear verdict that Everett works," says Saunders, who is presenting the work with Wallace at the Many Worlds at 50 conference at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, this week. "It's a dramatic turnaround and it means that people now have to discuss Everett seriously."
Albrecht agrees that the work will shake up physicists' worlds. "Many people are uncomfortable about the probabilities at the heart of quantum mechanics and attempt to get rid of quantum mechanics because of it," he says. "But this greatly amplifies the fundamental place of quantum mechanics in our understanding of the physical world."
David Papineau, a philosopher of physics at King's College London, says that he has been converted from scepticism about many worlds to belief, based on its potential to one day solve this puzzle of quantum probabilities. He adds, though, that the work by Deutsch, Wallace and Saunders must now be scrutinised. "It's an ambitious claim and so we have to be careful," he says. For Papineau, the problem is whether a belief in parallel universes should affect the way we live our everyday lives .
Max Tegmark at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has long been a fan of the many-worlds scenario. But while he believes the new work on probability should help convince physicists of its reality, it will never be enough to win over die-hard sceptics. "The critique of many worlds is shifting from 'it makes no sense and I hate it' to simply 'I hate it'," he says.
David Albert, a philosopher of physics at Columbia University, New York, is sceptical. He argues there is good reason to be wary because the Oxford group may be guilty of sleight of hand. "When you first hear about this you feel euphoric," he says. "But then you think, maybe this is too good to be true." He believes that it is irrelevant that Deutsch and his colleagues can show that branching universes give the illusion of probabilistic outcomes to measurements. What we really want to know, says Albert, is why this branching happens in the first place. "They have answered a question, but I think it's the wrong question," he says.
Wojciech Zurek at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico believes that the Born rule is exactly the right question to tackle. However, he believes that it can be answered without resorting to parallel universes. Zurek points out that Everett never used the term "many worlds" in his papers, and says that his work can be interpreted in less controversial ways.
Zurek is also inspired by Everett's ideas, particularly his insight that quantum mechanics must be applied to the entire universe rather than a limited quantum realm. He interprets this to mean that quantum entanglement - the process in which quantum particles can become inextricably linked and act in unison no matter how far apart they are - is a fundamental ingredient of quantum physics. Zurek has already used this property to explain why we see a single objective reality when we make a measurement of a quantum state (New Scientist, 30 June, p 18). Zurek says that entanglement can also be used to derive the Born rule (www.arxiv.org/abs/0707.2832).
"I could not have derived probability without using Everett," says Zurek, who is also presenting his work at the conference. "But at no point am I forced to assign equal reality to all other versions of the universe in the many-worlds scenario."
For Tegmark, the fact that many worlds is sparking such debate, 50 years after its conception, is a triumph in itself. He believes that physicists interested in quantum computing and cosmology are now warming to it. Will the majority be won over? "That depends on what parallel universe you live in," he says.
From issue 2622 of New Scientist magazine, 19 September 2007, page 6-7
Just another universe
Like Schr?dinger's cat, you're locked in a box with a vial of poison gas. If a radioactive atom decays before someone opens the box to observe you, the gas will be released. According to the multiverse picture, in one future "you" will live, because the atom has not decayed, and in another "you" will die. So, should you be worried?
The issue of how we should feel and act when faced with a constantly splitting identity will be addressed by David Papineau of King's College London at a conference on the many-worlds scenario in Waterloo, Canada this week.
To start with, Papineau considers feelings of guilt and hope in the multiverse. Suppose that you are driving recklessly and narrowly avoid crashing into another car. "You might think 'lucky escape', but you should be feeling guilty about the passengers your other self has killed," says Papineau.
He also questions the use of hope. "You hope your football team will win a match, but that's meaningless - they both win and lose," he says.
Although each of our descendant selves is equally real, thankfully Papineau argues that their fates shouldn't affect our choices before we make them. We should be just as reluctant, or excited, about climbing into Schr?dinger's box in the many-worlds picture, as we would be if we believed that only one outcome is actually realised.
Simon Saunders at the University of Oxford doesn't think that Papineau is wrong, but does think he is asking too much of us. "The multiverse will drive you crazy if you really think about how it affects your life, and I can't live like that," he says. His solution? "I'll just accept Everett and then think about something else, to save my sanity."