shintashi

in the far future, you will see we are still going to be able to use these basic limitations as guidelines until something dramatic changes the way we perceive the laws of physics. In the mean time, the same system - triangulating the end point of a moving vehicle and sending fuel/supply ships to converge, at different speeds and times, is something we can do even if the passengers are stuck in a giant rotating donut. I am well aware of the limited acceleration capabilities of our current rocket designs, and also understand a slow stream/ion engine is probably going to be the mainstream in this century. This system is meaningless if you are thinking about a bunch of people firing off rockets from the same point simultaneously, or even to relatively stationary points in LEO or nearby satellites. It's designed to keep high speed vehicles from spending too much energy to avoid crashing into each other or to otherwise 'catch up' or 'slow down'. Thus it becomes more efficient when we have even higher durations of sustained acceleration at extreme ranges. It's essentially a fix for several problems we don't even have the technology to reach yet. But it's also a simple principle for colonization. You can use low G for long periods of time, and drift, and you could use a toroid full of passengers drifting at high speeds then dock with several other craft, if you had their maximum velocity stair cased in a sequence of release. Thus the first vehicle would be the slowest, while the others would be subsequently higher velocity. At some point one of these vehicles, be it the slowest, the fastest, or somewhere in the middle, meets up with the others, and they all dock simultaneously. The best case scenario would launch solar satellite stations at different points where the new craft would be assembled and then launch all craft simultaneously. I think factoring in extreme distances, however, can help reduce the amount of change in velocity a staggered release would produce. That's because the extreme distances would drag out the time to the extreme, so even the slightest difference in velocity between ship A and ship B would mean the faster ship would inevitably catch up, even if it was only 0.1 meters/second faster.

The long term equations are still going to boil down to 1g/s being the optimal acceleration for human beings over a long period of time, assuming essentially near luminal accelerants like some over powered ion cannon. I created this theory based on the absolute limits of propulsion technology and biology. While human beings can survive 4 Gs, and some don't black out at 9+, it is a fact most would not enjoy anything over 1 G. But it is also a fact that in low gravity over long periods of time human bone marrow decays and then the tissues decay on the microscopic level, even if the astronauts are practicing isometrics. By consistently accelerating the craft at 1G, our hypothetically optimized spacecraft can reach extremely high velocities in a short period of time. Naturally, craft today can accelerate a vehicle much faster, but for only short periods of time. My principle doesn't fail in either case - whether we have high acceleration, low acceleration, gradual acceleration or sporadic acceleration - the point is to create a distant - potentially moving target, and then have the technical equipment and researchers transported to a new concentration of fuel and supplies. This system is ideal for ranges exceeding several astronomical units. Mainly, the system accounts for the fact that spacecraft at extreme ranges use fuel or other gases to maneuver through verniers, and that substance used for maneuvering, docking, slowing down, speeding up, etc., can be optimized by minimizing the amount of changes in angles, velocities, and position in space used for rendezvous. If we are clever, we would send these convergent craft to a place where they approximated synchronized or parallel motion with a large fuel supply, depending on what materials are used for fuel, such as a moon or asteroid belt. The flaws of this system are as follows: the more vehicles you send out, the more likely something will go wrong with some of them the greater the distance, the more precise the calculations have to be and the greater the correct necessary if in error limited man, or unmanned fuel transports would collectively increase the total cost of the project far beyond a single craft Nevertheless, this is a proven way for a craft with limited mass and limited fuel to achieve much greater acceleration potentials and thus much longer range.

Greetings! Some time ago, I began thinking about different methods of getting around the acceleration issues of long distance space travel. As you know, when a rocket is traveling through space, it's mass is depleting every second of acceleration, and every second of course course correction. That's because the fuel has mass, and when it's gone, it's gone for good. Most of us interested in exploring the solar system have noticed there's lots of asteroids and they probably have the materials we need to make more rocket fuel, but that's not an easy endeavor at this time, since those rocks are huge, fast, and often rotating, and we really don't have what it takes to build something like an asteroid mining facility at this time, without creating a global super-depression. So I thought, well, how can we get something going faster, without assuming there's going to be more "stuff" on the way? The answer is very similar to the parallax and lunar tide manifestations. As anyone who's got some understanding of astronomy might recall, the distance from the sun to the earth is actually not so great that it has less gravitational effect than the moon. In fact, it has more. The reason we notice the lunar tides more than the solar is because the sun's distance is so great that the difference between the light side and the dark side of the earth is approximately the same. That means on a sunny day in Hawaii, the sun's pull on the Atlantic Ocean is like 99.9...% the pull on the Pacific, so the dinky gravity of the Moon has much more wobble producing power, because the moon is so close that the difference between the Atlantic and pacific oceans have a noticeable difference. This is also similar to the laser like quality of sunlight when compared to something like an incandescent bulb or candle. The light from the sun is also radial, but the sunlight that hits us is already a slice of that pie- a sliver in fact. That sliver is so thin - it's angle is so sharp that you could reflect it all the way around the world with mirrors and it would hardly get much "fatter".It's practically a laser beam. So what do does this all have to do with space exploration? Fuel. When you go up in space with a 100 ton rocket, and a crew with supplies, you might be lucky if 50 tons are dedicated to fuel. Most of the time, with rockets, the fuel weighs considerably more than the capsule. The real problem with this is the fact that the fuel has to move itself too. So the whole time you are blasting off into space, you are also losing your mass, which means you can go faster, but you are also losing fuel to fight against the weight of the fuel + you. So what I came up with is the idea of a big triangle, or deformed tetrahedron or diamond point. The tip of the "blade" where the lines of the triangles meet, is way out in space. The rendezvous point. One of these rockets is the crew and their base supplies, while the other rockets are full of extra fuel and/or supplies. The spacecraft link up at such great distances that the angles needed to line up become negligible. Thus while a bunch of fuel is spent getting each rocket that far and fast in space, when they converge, the craft has an entirely new set of fuel to either keep going or to slow down. Other factors can be taken into account to improve overall performance, including using the gravitational pull of large objects to slow down or make sharp turns, or using asteroids etc. for new fuel. It's also possible, if your focus isn't raw acceleration, to send up unmanned rockets that are transporting a lot of fuel and supplies very slowly, but far in advance of the live crew, and then intercept these at a later point, by spending a portion of your fuel to accelerate there, and a lesser portion of your fuel to slow down to their speed, you can still link up to a monstrous amount of reserve fuel and supplies. You could even use this technique to create massive space stations at remote regions of the solar system, by launching at different times of the year with different rates of acceleration. You could also set up the supply ships to automatically, and remotely assemble into some kind of super-tanker like space base. So the basic idea is exploiting the fact that at extreme distances, the amount of 'course correction' needed to line up and dock is nearly zero, and the fact that you can put more fuel on something that doesn't need people or research equipment (etc.) and send it great distances without completely exhausting itself, and by doing this in numbers greater than 1, implies your human occupied space craft, accelerating merrily at 1G could end up with more fuel to spend on arrival than even when it first left - this all means space exploration can go much, much further, without having to create unrealistic or prohibitively expensive technologies.

While watching some old lectures from Caltech, I began to ponder over a theory about the solid-liquid nature of substances. A while back, I proposed the basic notion (which may already be a theory somewhere, so you'll have to forgive me if I have yet to stumble upon it) "i theorize that all solid substances are essentially liquids, and all liquids and gases are essentially crystallized formations, and with sufficient velocity or temporal disturbance, such objects can be made to resemble elastic materials or shatter, be it steel, water, glass, or human flesh " -me, Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:25 pm this is what I was originally thinking, however, I would like to further illustrate some points on that hypothesis. First of all, the concept of time is a function of velocity (in other words the gamma variable). Now relative to deep space objects hurdling across the universe, This velocity would be near luminal (as all velocities are merely a function of two objects in comparison to each other). As an object moves swiftly, from the perspective of that object, other objects move slowly. This slow moving relative function means that those objects would seem not only slow, but also colder, having a lower temperature, relative to the first object. Even if these two objects are not on a direct collision course, the principles of shock waves or magnetic disturbances with cold temperatures might be related. Obviously, as above, so below. it may mean that a temporal disturbance exists around cryogenic experiments, although I do not yet have the laboratory access or experimental permission of my sponsor university to conduct such experiments. I hope there is someone out there reading this, who will see the implications of this idea.

Mr. Bucky Ball? I'm always happy to find links to free math resources. This afternoon my companion acquired a copy of Penrose's road to Reality per request. She went for a Guide on Quantum Physics herself (she's a biochemistry major with an insatiable curiosity for related fields). either way, the concept of a triangle seems ideal for demonstrating the points between geometric surface, epsilon and ratio. As for the rotating electron comparison, it reminds me someone of string theory theory. Thanks to everyone for replying - I'm always open to new possibilities.

A while ago, I fonud myself between degrees and having a lot of spare time to do some studying. The two subjects I decided to crack down on were Physics and Mathematics, and using the former to be somewhat of an instruction in the latter. Years ago I worked on formulating a hypothesis about the difference in n-dimensional manifolds between what is required for a circle/sphere and what is required for a polygon or polyhedron. I noticed that while squares really did require four lines and two dimensions to exist, a circle was really just one line along curved space and had more in common with a mobius strip than a square. While working with some translations on various math texts including three books by Euler and several essays on people such as Gauss and Descartes, and naturally a lot of research into the history of Zero and Berkeley's retort on fluxions, I decided to get back into the research I put off back then. First of all, I propose that a circle is jsut a line. If a circle is just a line, then it is only necessary for a point plus a vector to generate. If space is curved, then a circle a perfectly straight line, while space curves around an imaginary point out to a given radius. I also noticed that a sphere couldn't in its construction be truly 3 dimensional because it was too simple to construct. A sphere is not two circles overlapping in a 360 degree pattern, but instead, a 360 degree curve of space acompanied by a 180 degree turn at a right angle.If you set an ordinary coin, such as a penny into a spin, you may notice the optical illusion of a sphere forming. This is somewhat connected to the idea of why waves travel in sine functions. At first this seems entirely ridiculous for a motion to go up then change direction and head down, then, defying all logic the thing turns itself about and moves back up again. Many times I looked at a wheel, such as a bicycle reflector moving across a plane generating the frequency but recently I'ts occured to me, that if the curve is not seen as a snake winding through a medium, but instead seen as a series of derivative points being emitted as linear shocks, it would then appear to be a wave, but instead would be a series slightly out of sync kind of like how a caramel machine moves back and forth to deposit candy on a wafer bar. Anyway, that's not the main focus. What I was really thinking about was something a bit different, and the concept of Epsilon, or to say, a number slightly bigger than 0 but still basically infinitely small. If we are to establish that a circle is exactly equal distance from its center on all sides, then we are to understand that a circle with a radius of zero is identical to a point. We are also to understand that when the radius is at 90 degrees to the circumference, the circumference is to be infinite. If the circumference is at 90 degrees to the radius, which is a straight line, incedentally, then it must be a line, even though before it was a curve. Being a line requires a dimension in the same way being a square requires two. this leads me to believe that if the radius is set to zero, we have a point and to infinity we have a line. If these two aspects are true, then how many dimensions are really used in the creation of a circle or sphere? It also seems obvious that collapsing a sphere's radius at any point would yield a point in three dimensional space, but it seems to me that without a second vector function it is highly probable that instead of completely eliminating the curved space you could actually just reduce the sphare back into a circle, or potentially, a line. I then began to wonder if a computation using complex numbers would better illustrate a way of reducing or generating a sphere. This, admittedly, I have yet to resolve, although it seems I discovered something also odd. There is no such thing as a radius measured as epsilon, for it will either be zero or it will be an integer, however, There is no such thing as a polygon or polyhedron that having its most central points converge toward a point will ever reach a zero radius on all points. Instead, some proportion must always be epsilon. If you begin with something as rudimentary as a point and a square, you will find this to be true. For only at zero and infinity do circles and squares converge, but at epsilon does a circle begin, and at epsilon does a square end.

hmnn.. has anyone looked into the process of wave splicing and decoding as performed by Tesla ? Apparently he could take two completely different frequencies, splice them together, and had a method of decoding them, back when he was inventing guided torpedos. Has anyone stopped to think of how this could theoretically negate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ? And how this would effect our theories about the origins of the theories behind quantum teleportation ? - Shin

Transhumanism is a scary thing. Not so much in the idea that it presents in general- of which I totally agree, nor with what you might assume- the specific deeper notions. No, it is the various branches and often extremely poor perceptions of science and reality that make me nervous. In one transhumanist article, it was unfortunate to see that the author believed that it would be a leap forward for humanity to download our minds into computers, and eliminate the need for artistic drive such as music, and instead, endorsed more practical addictions like "capitalism". The author could not see any practical application of music, harmony, etc. The principle of dealing with this subject was designed to inspire the creative scientific minds, and to question the most advanced principles and theories behind the future of humanity. As it is, immortality is on the top ten list of humanity's driving goals, religion being one of its biggest offsprings, medicine being another. Do you honestly believe that medicine would be as vast as it is today if we only treated non lethal injuries - such as a broken arm or upset stomach ? If mankind didn't fear death, they would not go to the extraordinary means to preserve life. If death was not seen as a finality to which repocussions existed almost entirely in the material world, then War as we know it, would not be waged, and society itself would be utterly different. No, it is false to presume that the topic of immortality,-- in a world where cloning animals, growing humans from donor cells decades old, and the humna genom map and ultimate genetic retroviruses are around the corner-- is not part of science. if there be a thing, and there be two like it, one greater, and one lesser, then there must be something greater still, and something lesser still. - this is the principle of changing one's circumstances. if one human can live for 100 years, while another lives for only fifty, then it must be possible, for a human being to live for only 25 years, or for 200. If there exists a human being who in unaffected by poison ivy, or snake bites, then it must be possible for another, if not everyone else, to have a similar property. Concerning enhancing the blood. Recently, a new type of artificial blood cell was developed to carrry oxygen. It is made out of a special plastic with chemical properties, and will shortly be used as a blood replacement in hospitals. On a more advanced principle, there will come a time when the use of mesoscale and nanotechnological devices are sent through the blood stream, as man made innoculation. Many theorists believe at some point in time the "t-1000" technology could be created and used not for death machines, but to function as repair machines through the blood stream, making a person almost completely immortal. Currently, in Utah, they have begun more advanced developments of power suits, bionic exoskeletal systems which will enhance the strength, and (so they claim) speed and motion of a human being. (if you desire i can give you a web site to the company, they are hiring engineers right now) As you may be aware, there was a new program covering a man who had an operation on his eyes, more specifically, they drilled a hole in his head and attached wires to his brain, and then attached a computer processor to a camera fitted in a pair of shades. He then drove a car through a parking lot, navigating with a cybernetic eye. In a hospital in America, a man was paralyized from the neck down, I do believe he was unable to speak as well, but he could move his eyes. The doctors wired a computer to his brain and tracked his eye motions, and now, by merely thinking, he can move a cursor on a computer screen, imagining his hand to be moving, and is able to type, form words, and even nagivate the internet. There is also a speach box in the computer that can talk (like Stephen Hawking, but not as annoying) Ulti

Sometime ago, perhaps 1996, it fell into my displeasure to check out a book at the library. It was titled "The Physics of Immortality". http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/tipler.html Ironically, it was not so much a random search for random things, but a random search for specific things. This particular thing I was seeking, was "the equation of immortality". Now, please, accept the apology here, for there will be many uses of "I", for it was during this point in life that "I" was most megalomaniacal, which itself, may have been an excellent motivator for research - highly recommended for those time periods where you are otherwise stumped. Now to continue the "I/MY/ME" rant. Within this book, I commited the most atrocious of Sins. I wrote comments. Nasty, evil, little biting comments about the erroneous nature of the thesis of the author. I even had the audacity to write in pencil, and may the Gods of science and education forgive me... it was a LIBRARY BOOK !!! So incensed was I with this work, that I found myself confounding the very principles of Sacrosanct Educational Elitism. Many years later, looking back in that book registry, we discovered that no one else had actually checked it out since then, not that many checked it out even before my time. On to the contents, (and after the boring rants, we will go into the meat of the discussion). Turing machines. That's the first thing I remember, now how they worked, I had no idea, but these perfect turing machines were effectively, badly constructed nanocomputers that copied themselves including the blueprints on how to copy themselves. At the time, my enfeebled brain could not possibly concieve of how to do this - how do you store a circuit board within a cicuit board ? it seemed quite paradoxical. Back then, the principle of Cloning evaded me. Your DNA does it all the time. For one, if you have a computer, most of the computer is only a bunch of copies of similar copies of small peices, repeated over and over. You do not need to store the entire 3thousand + peices, you need only store the 35-300 working models, and then copy those, cloning where necessary. The second principle is memory transfer. 10110101 etc. In any event, the turing machine was a fascinating deviation from a practicable vantage to immortality. The following principle that tipler approached was the "big bang-big crunch" theory of the universe, a very dark forboding look into Nietzchian thermodynamics, so ghastly that I found it difficult to stomach the nextmillion or so pages. In hindsight, Tipler seemed to completely evade the Cosmic Jets of blackholes, vaunting moreso the retro vision of a 1970s Disney Film. I felt as if the universe according to Tipler, had been created by the same morose people who braught us "Tron" and in his mind "it was meant to be that way". Now on to the non Crap version of "the physics of immortality". The first thing that crosses my mind, when I think about physical, living, breathing immortality, is blood. Some months ago, we had a very long discussion about what ways physics and genetics could approach immortality, based upon the principle of "what could a human being do, if they still functioned, without blood ?" First, blood is what carries DNA and Vectors from retroviruses. If you have no blood, then in theory, there is no immediate way to transmit the new cell information, which means you are "locked" into the current pattern. Second, it is through blood that poisons, and toxins, and diseases are carried. Withhout blood, if you were some how still alive, these chemicals could never transmit through your body, and at best would be localized instances. Third, DNA is created through the mutation of protiens and fueled by carbohydrates both of which are carried through the bood, which means, if you didnt need blood, you would not grow older, for no new materials would be necessary. <

flashbulbs vs. sustained energy: as far as I've noticed, Tesla was capable of producing more energy than mankind is today, and while we may believe the petawatt lasers for instance, exceed his parameters of possibility, we forget to do certain activities, like division. when Lawrence Livermore creates an e15 watt laser, it only lasts for a fraction of a second. A thermonnuclear reactor takes 3,153,600 seconds to reach e15 watts, and a megaton hydrogen bomb maintains this value of energy for a brief flash. All of these fancy energy productions are actually USING tesla patents,if not directly Teslamachines (such as the power generators pushing into the capacitors at Livermore). Tesla, on the other hand, understood the principle of exponential energy production, and could, with a pocket sized device, shredBrooklyn bridge in a matter of minutes. He created earthquakes in Manhatten with a device about the size of a TV set - and the earthquakes GREW in magnitude until he smashed the device with a sledgehammer. The amounts of energy possible with Tesla boggles the mind. Apparently, the "death beam" he spoke of would have a range ofhundreds of miles and could target thousands of planes simultaneously. Concerning his "lesser" experiments, Tesla's tablesized carbon button lamb was capable of producing energy intensities that could disintegratediamonds and rubies - LITERALLY disintegrating them on the atomic level. This technique today is used in steel mills (with ZERO credit to tesla) on a lesser scale to electrically smelt steeland to so degree, aluminum, and yet no one thanks him. Your modern plasma cutter for $20,000 found in popular science magazines and the like, are also an abrdigement of this principle invention. I think if tesla really wanted to use something more severe than ultra violet lamps at some odd million candelas, - heprobably would have. fun experiments at Helsinki, from a finnish website. http://personal.inet.fi/atk/dncmrc/thorguid.htm

i do believe that we will experience a severe climate shift in the next 5-11 years. It will be caused by a polarization exchange between north and south poles, which will interfere with our magnetosphere. While we might not see any mile wide tornados in California, we will see Aurora Borealis lights in the night sky as far south as oregon and kentucky, and for a brief period of time, fluctuations of similar phenomenon at even lower meridian points. We will also experience droughts the likes of which the world has forgotten, and geomagnetic earthquakes, which themselves, while not expressing plate tectonics in the lesser scale, will represent the disturbance of the magnetic core in the greater scale, causing a number of magma eruptions to escalate, then die down. From the models I've seen,and derrived, there will be "zones" where the south and north poles nullfy completely, which will be widly in flux. In areas such as these, ecoterrorists might claim that "the ozone layer" is disapearing due to "green house effects". This would be false. The cosmic background radiation will damage the atmosphere in areas where the magnetosphere is in flux, and especially during a solar wind/flare, however, this itself will not be a permanent catastrophy, and will mostly likely pass in 20 years or less, after the poles have realigned south-north. If the poles do switch in the next 5-11 years, - which I DO expect to begin to become evident (as opposed to the 50-200 year model conservatives have given you, if at all) then do not be decieved by panic supression media, nor its apocalyptic adverse. THey would have you believe that while millions more will die from earlier signs of cancer (in say, 5-10 years instead of 10-20), there will not be any truly dangerous immediate effects in the long run. THEY ARE WRONG. Pockets of death will encompass the earth, entirely randomnly, by all accounts, (unless the Earth simulator gets a major upgrade in japan). In random areas, heat waves will kill tens of thousands in a matter of days, across europe, north america, australia, and south parts of Argentina and Africa. The alteration of the ionization may also tamper with sattelite feed, electircal and power grids, (to a lesser extent) cell phone and wireless net signals (to a greater extent) and one of the more horrible things that people have forgotten. There will be "pockmarks" in our magnetosphere in a state of flux. Unfortunately, our magnetosphere contributes heavily to deflecting not only solar flares, but also meteors, comets, and the like. We still have our atmosphere to burn some stuff up, but I do not know for sure if that will still be sufficient. My estimate is that in those "pocket areas" some random rocks may be sufficient to destroy homes and nieghborhoods, and occassionally a larger population. I do not know if the HAARP experiment can resolve, slow down, or accelerate this problem. I do not know if the radiation innoculation in production right now will be sufficient, and if not, if it will be ready to be so, by the time the mess gets really bad. In a worst case scenario... well, You've seen the big cold ice age movie, but many of you might have forgotten that other doomsday movie " CORE". only one problem: there is no such thing as "unobtanium".

How smart was Tesla ? many people have wondered this. Everyone has their hero, and place that hero in a golden cage aloft a tower far beyond the reach of reason and sensibility. For many there is a subconscious thought that if you somehow elevate a person far enough into obscurity, you will not be able to distinguish the idol well enough to see its chips and cracks. Such a distant observation of a character, could easily require the elucidation of the characterization on the part of the godmaker, who themselves would be seen as a Prophet. Now to bring forth the Iconoclast. Nikola Tesla, was, from aproximately, what years of research has taught me, one of the10 smartest men on earth. His intelligence factor fits somewhere beneath Solomon, and Jesus Christ, Roughly equivelent to Lao Tzu, and comparable to Davinci and Heraclitus (another mad genius). He was, for the western world, about as intelligent as people thought Aristotle was, and roughly fits in the seat of Science whereBuddha fits in the seat of Religion. Was he as smart as Isaac Newton ? No. he was smarter. Was he as smart as Edison ? That's an odd question. Edison was infact a genius. Both men had very similar characteristics, but Edison's genius was focused in buisiness and capitalism (especially of other people's ideas) moreso than his actual powers of invention. Edison was brilliant, even by today's standards, and would probably be somewhere in the Hawking/Hubble range of thinking. However, Edison was the kind of man who would try exposing people to large amounts of X-rays to "cure blindness" while Tesla was the kind of man to write a lengthy article on "the dangers of X-rays", months prior. Tesla had several characteristics that place his cognitive abilities in the superhuman range, similar to what you have with an idiot savant/autistic without the penalty of being an idiot or Autistic. (Tesla of course made of for it with a wide variety of neurosis). Tesla had a mind which wouldn't quit. He could work for days straight without sleep. Both he and edison considered 2-3 hours a day to be plenty of sleep, and worked the rest. Tesla was fluent in several languages.He was alsoable to recall things beyond the point of eidetic, and straight into the realm of total recall. Tesla's mind was so powerful that he needed no blue prints to build his devices, he had them memorized, in 4 dimensions, in his mind, fully functional, down to the limit of microns, in his head. He was able to "test" and "fix" his machines in his mind before he ever actually built the first prototype, which almost invariably, worked exactly as he planned it. Tesla was able to visualize the electromotive flow of forcefields in his mind and their encumbant reactions, much like the Earth Simulator Supercomputer in Japan. Tesla could do mathematical equations on the fly, in a literal, tangible way, even though as a child he had minimal training in the subject. Tesla could recite entire volumes by memory, apparently a gift he had attained from his mother. Tesla has one of the largest patent portfolios in the history of science, and oddly, his number of patents, actually exceeds Edisons in a way that is not immediately apparent. Edison baught most of his ideas from other inventors who wanted the Edison name to push their inventions forward, or simply needed the money. Edison was also notarious for offering to purchase successful ideas, patent them, and then later refuse to pay up. After all, who would dare challenge the great and mighty Edison ? Tesla did. in the 1800s, people called Tesla a charlatan. That, you might have heard. But why, you might not. Tesla was called a charlatan, because he controlled aboat in a bay of water at the world's fair. He controlled it well enough to move it around, blink on command, and had plans for some other effects, but decided the world was not ready to believe what else he could make the autonomaton do. Why was he a charlatan then ? Because the people thought

In history, there have scarcely been men we could truly call great, in the field of scientific pioneers. And sadly so, one of the greatest stories ever told, has been all but forgotten. There once was a great man, his name was Nikola Tesla. This is his Story. I remember walking through the asphalt parks of the once green landfill-turned-wallmart, perhaps it was 9 o clock PM, Pacific Time. I looked up into the distant sky, and beheld, towering in the distance, a strange looking Cellphone tower. I pointed to it like a child naming his favorite pet and said " Tesla !" It wasn't too many years ago that we had not seen any such construction in our fair city, though Expo '74 might have given us a glimpse of the future. A future, which Tesla built with his bare hands --Long forgotten by all accounts. I remember watching a discovery channel episode on Tesla, it discussed "the world's first true "mad scientist" and if you, like me, remember those old black & white superman cartoons, you might remember that the Legend of Tesla was once as famous as Coca-Cola and Santa Clause. Tesla was an Archtype, - a type of personality upon which countless generations would remember mythically, ingrained into their culture, as if it had always been there. Remember the "flux capacitor" from Back to the Future ? The scientist was based upon Tesla. Remember those giant flashing lightning rods you see in Frankenstien ? Those were TESLA COILS. Lex Luthor ? - Tesla. Ever heard of the caped crusader ? - He used rocket fuel for his car (invented by tesla) he was a billionare (which Tesla would have been, but settled for a Millionaire, in the 1890s. Which today is - yep, you guessed it, about the same as a billionaire). Bruce wayne was a genius, so was Tesla. Bruce Wayne was popular with the girls, Tall, striking, handsome. - So was Tesla. (infact, Tesla was once considered one of "the best dressed men in New york City" and a "catch") Tesla not only had huge resources and backers(until he nearly went bankrupt spending money on research), but he also flaunted money like candy (which he never stopped doing). The first X-ray photo of a human being was Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) taken by Tesla. Tesla wined and dined with princes and kings, LITERALLY. The first World's Fair to have Electricity in the scale it does today, was because of Tesla. Cony Island exists because of Tesla. For japanese animation fans, you must realize thatalmost alllthe mad scientist characters from "Bubble Gum Crisis" all the way to "Happy Lesson" are based on Tesla. Scientists were always considered a little eccentric, but so were artists, politicians, royalty, and so on. The actual MAD scientist cliche'comes straight from Tesla. Tesla had a fear of pearl earings, and never wore jewelry, watches or anything of the sort (which considering the restrictions for MRI machine operators, it makes a lot of sense). He was a strict vegetarian. He believed that some day, mankind by his enginuity would latch onto the "wheel work of the universe" and accomplish tasks which placed him on par with his maker. Tesla is one of the very few scientists in the history of mankind to have an actual unit of measure named after him, oddly enough, its a unit of measure for electromagnetism, so large, that you can't use it for a practical man, you have to use it for things like measuring magnetars,powerplants, military weapons,stars, pulsars, and various devices at CERN and Laurence Livermore particle accelerators. "One tesla is defined as the field intensity generating one newton of force per ampere of current per meter of conductor. Equivalently, one tesla represents a magnetic flux density of one weber per square meter of area. A field of one tesla is quite strong: the strongest fields available in laboratories are about 20 teslas, and the Earth's magnetic flux density, at its surface, is about 50