People always throw the word "genius" around about every smart person or clever person but who are some actual Geniuses

People always throw the word "genius" around about every smart person or clever person but who are some actual Geniuses

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Beethoven

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm still debating if Gary was a genius for making this or if he just got lucky

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That has zero predictive power and cellular automata were not invented by him.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >That has zero predictive power and cellular automata were not invented by him.

        If a team with actual funding gave it a go I think they use it to make predictions. To Gary's credit he was one of the only people I know of who predicted the massive galaxies seen by James Webb in the early universe. He says the prediction came out of his simulation. It's a fractal or something and he thinks we'll find older and older galaxies forever, but possible it was just a lucky guess. I don't know.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >cellular automata were not invented by him.

        Well obvious Von Neumann was on another level.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I also wonder how many geniuses live today but just get lost in the numbers/bureaucracy/small incremental knowledge discovery

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I also wonder how many geniuses live today but just get lost in the numbers/bureaucracy/small incremental knowledge discovery

      This. I'm pretty sure most of us have the capacity for genius.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the thing separating a genius from a madman is timing

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They work at spacex and are designing an interplanetary spaceship

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Claude Shannon was a proper genius, as was Von Neumann.

    Kolmogorov was a proper genius, as was Chebyshev and Markov.

    I'd say Harald Cramér was also properly a genius, and Kalman definitely could fit well in that category.

    There are quite a few that have made just absolutely monumental contribution to their fields with properly revolutionary ideas.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >but who are some actual Geniuses
    shouldn't we be rather asking 'what is the algorithm for doing genius things / becoming a genius?'

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There is no "algorithm" for becoming a genius your comp-sci brain poisoned homosexual.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's just magic.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    einstein
    higgs
    feynmann
    oppenheimer

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      you only know about celebrities shilled by hollywood

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the layers of significance

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          GPT brain

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ~~*hollywood*~~

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'll give you one that no one has mentioned, and I guarantee very few of you even know who the frick he is.
        >Yakov Zel'dovich
        Arguably one of the most important scientists of the time...that know one knows about. There is good reason for that because his work has a metric frickton of classified defense applications, but I digress.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          i only know him as the one that thought about hawking radiation before hawking

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Optical phase conjugation is the reason why the military wants to stick lasers on everything. ~~*Allegedly*~~ his research was exfiltrated to the US, and the applied science portion was given to Robert Hellwarth at USC to come up with applications.
            >Laser self-focusing
            >Photon time reversal in a non-linear medium
            Hellwarth took it way further. Not just SBS, but multiwave mixing schemes (2/3/4 wave).
            I'm surprised you know about BH Superradiance, that's not what's he's known for. "Principals of Phase Conjugation" is his seminal work as far as the DoD is concerned. Take his methane cell and substitute a BEC or Fermionic condensate, and you'll be on the right track. Then add the work from Lene Hau at Harvard and Wolfgang Ketterle at MIT, and Bob's your uncle.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Optical phase conjugation
            that is one weird trick

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You have no idea. Look up the patents for Robert Hellwarth and Lene Hau in particular. There is hardly any. Yet, this was groundbreaking science in 1999-2004.
            >Why is that?
            I could tell you, but no one would believe me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I won't swear at you but can't promise for other anons. that being said, tell us.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Buddy...
            >What is a polariton driven gamma ray laser
            What happens to the wave length, IQfy?
            https://groups.seas.harvard.edu/haulab/slow_light_project/slow_light_project.htm

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            does time pass faster inside the BEC? or?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, LiJun Wang and Ulf Lenonhard thinks it does.
            https://www.scribd.com/document/208319/NEC-Time-Travel-Experiment-in-2000
            This is his follow up to his Nature article on "Gain Assisted Superluminal Propagation"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            *Ulf Leonhardt

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >LiJun Wang and Ulf Lenonhard thinks it does.
            would it mean it travels for longer distance? like a sort of space expansion inside the BEC?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, he specifically states in his Nature followup that is is not a "phase versus group velocity" anomaly, and that is should be investigated further. When "rephrasing" is mentioned, it appears he is that the group velocity may be time reversed. The plasmonic excitation in the experiment travels 300x faster than actual photons in the same vacuum traversal distance.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            To add, a BEC functions as a non-linear medium same as one that support phase conjugation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            And I would add, I would love to know that I am moronic...but I don't think I am. I think it's exactly what he says it is. Keep in mind, Wang went from NEC America Princeton directly to the Max Planck of Quantum Optics, where Ketterle came from initially before his Nobel at MIT.

            >LiJun Wang and Ulf Lenonhard thinks it does.
            would it mean it travels for longer distance? like a sort of space expansion inside the BEC?

            To add, a BEC functions as a non-linear medium same as one that support phase conjugation.

            I would love to know an actual explanation of this. It sure seems like FTL is possible, given alterations of permiability and permittivity of the vacuum ground state. The vacuum is ground state temperature average is 25 Kelvin. These experiments are pico-Kelvin.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >https://www.scribd.com/document/208319/NEC-Time-Travel-Experiment-in-2000
            says photons pop out faster than traveling in vacuum. has this been replicated?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's the odd thing, it hasn't. Everyone shit on Wanf experimentally with "muh phase versus group velocity", but no one actually replicated the experiment. This is odd because at the same time the EXACT same experiment was going on at different universities using the not only the same electomagnetically induced transparency setup, but THE SAME ALKALI GAS. Ketterle won his Noble using the same setup shortly before Wang was published in Nature. Rice verified a BEC formation in Lithium, MIT/NEC Princeton in cesium, etc. etc. If anyone knows anything about this, the PATENTABLE applications are huge. Like billions of dollars in licensing. But almost zero parents. Why is that? Ketterle's Nobel work generated exactly one patent, and that was on the EIT trap and owned jointly by MIT and Harvard. Most importantly, all the above's research was funded by the Office of Naval Research directly. Why is that?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s003400050293
            https://arxiv.org/abs/0910.0634
            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12471267/
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate
            Lots of follow-ups, all funded by the EXACT same organization

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate
            BEC is weird af. interesting read

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            didn't yet look at link. but will

            And I would add, I would love to know that I am moronic...but I don't think I am. I think it's exactly what he says it is. Keep in mind, Wang went from NEC America Princeton directly to the Max Planck of Quantum Optics, where Ketterle came from initially before his Nobel at MIT.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/KAAGZmm.png

            Buddy...
            >What is a polariton driven gamma ray laser
            What happens to the wave length, IQfy?
            https://groups.seas.harvard.edu/haulab/slow_light_project/slow_light_project.htm

            I won't even talk about artificial Kerr Singularities

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/KAAGZmm.png

            Buddy...
            >What is a polariton driven gamma ray laser
            What happens to the wave length, IQfy?
            https://groups.seas.harvard.edu/haulab/slow_light_project/slow_light_project.htm

            I will post more if someone can answer my question

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He was also arguably the principal behind the Soviet nuclear weapons program. Sakahrov was the "Oppenheimer" , but Zel'dovich was was responsible for most of the Soviet fission and thermonuclear research.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Physicists are weird creatures but not geniuses

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i am impressed that von neuman also invented explosive lenses used to compress these uranium or plutonium spheres

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Dirac

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Most scientists from the quantum era have been laiuded as smart. One cant help by being impressed because the concepts are not intuitive, quantum is not something one sees in daily life unlike falling apples.
    I like Eugene Wigner for explaining how all quantum laws were just group theory

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    elon musk <3

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is this guy actually smart or is it the scientist's equivalent of chinese whispers where accounts of his brilliance varies from person to person and over time he is deified

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      H was just that good. Probably one of the Top 10 minds humanity has ever produced.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just from results alone his name will raise eyebrows. Then when you look at the countless testimonies of his everyday demeanor through his life there's no question, he shaped the world in the 20th century more than any other human being and he had fun doing it.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Leaving aside everything else, pic related MUST be a genius because:
    a) He is the only philosopher I've read who is able to express his ideas clearly, without resorting to jargon and mysticism; and
    b) As an undergrad he abandoned his study of statistics because he intuitively concluded that the field relied too heavily on the presumption of the applicability of normal distribution (see, https://towardsdatascience.com/your-data-isnt-normal-54fe98b1f322).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      also you can't help but think he was a handsome lad

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/lYPREzC.jpg

      also you can't help but think he was a handsome lad

      Rothbard was spot on his criticism of the State but he didn't provide any viable solution to the State problem. Robert Nozick's approach to Minarchism is more pragmatic and realistic.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nozick's attempts to justify the existence of the state are seriously problematic. I don't blame you for not realising that though, as his prose is turgid and his reasoning employs frequent small but CRUCIAL leaps of logic.

        For cogent and substantive criticisms of Nozick which may interest you, I would recommend Ch. 10 of Michael Huemer's 'The Problem of Political Authority' and Rothbard's paper 'Nozick and the Immaculate Conception of the State'.

        Happy reading, anon. 🙂

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I dont know anything about this dude, other than he hated israelites and was opposed to social programs. Basically a lolberg, theres a million like him.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        a lolberg?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, a lolberg.
          Never understood what people see about him, at least Ayn Rand wrote novels, i almost finished Atlas Shrugged, it kind of got too sci-fi by the end (galts gulch) as if the billionaires could survive in some commune.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The thought occurs that announcing you 'don't know anything' about someone, and then passing judgement upon them and the body of their work may not be the best way to have your assessments heeded.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He deserves none of my attention
          "social program bad"
          Ok, fair enough. I get it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      b mirrors Taleb's reasoning, interesting.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Luis Alberto Spinetta
    Alexander Grothendieck

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Genius here, ask me anything.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Genius is something you have, not something you are. Calling someone a genius is like calling a great artist a muse.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Genius is not something "you have," it is something one has. Type in proper English, you imbecile.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        this is an american board on an american website. we don't give a frick about proper english.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Is that something you just learned in esl class?

    • 1 month ago
      Cult of Passion

      >Genius is something you have, not something you are.
      No, I am genius, what I have is a failing vessel called a body.

      I am not body. I am genius.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you sure do seem to like talking about yourself on social media

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    me, Anonymous

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    not me

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    james kaiser

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    John Von Neumann was not a genius, just watch his interview on YouTube.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone?

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No one...
    >Alas...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      dam bro that's pretty fricking smart. you're pretty interesting and shit. got that smart shadowy allure. wish I was half the man and intellect that you are. fricking hell, rare unit right here.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Don't be a homosexual. What happens to the wavelength? Answer my question.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I literally don't know because I can't read from the article that you'd read anyway. even tho I learned nothing from you, you managed to steal this appreciation without actually saying or doing anything. I find this power of yours extremely interesting. I'll stick around maybe I'll learn a trick or two from you, god knows I need some of this good stuff in my life. truly inspiring anon
          I will tell my friends about this deep realization I experienced in your presence. they will be in awe

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Bro, i've literally highlighted what you need to read. Again, don't be a homosexual. What happens to the wavelength, other that eliciticing a homosexual comment from (you).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it gets shorter? at least it would seem to? suppose it pops back out with original wavelength?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You would think, or does it? She conveniently leaves that out. What if it was compressed into the gamma regime? What then?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And it's posted in the link.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            didn't yet look at link. but will

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You should...
            https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread901726/pg3
            >Inb4 ATS
            Refute the assertion

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    True geniuses are those who completely changed their fields. The bigger the impact the bigger a genius they were. Creativity trumps processing speed, which is why the greatest geniuses are the likes of Einstein, Heisenberg, Planck, Gauss, Da Vinci, Euler, Mozart, Beethoven, Newton, Godel, Riemann, Grothendieck, Maxwell, Faraday…

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *