Skip to content
September 3, 2011 / itsnobody

The Top 10 Most Overrated “Geniuses”

Here is my top 10 list of the most overrated geniuses. The rankings are based upon how overrated the “geniuses” starting from the lesser overrated geniuses ending with the most overrated genius.

#10 – Bill Gates

I don’t know why anyone would consider Bill Gates to be a genius, it’s a mystery to me.

I’m not sure if Bill Gates belongs on this list since I don’t consider him to be a genius of any kind. Since some atheists keep saying that “Bill Gates invented the computer” or something foolish like that I decided to put him on this list.

Bill Gates never invented the computer, the keyboard, the mouse, the GUI desktop concept, or anything like that. Yet for some reason many people really believe that he did.

The actual pioneers of the computer were people like Charles BabbageAlan Turing, and John von Neumann.

The first computer to use the desktop mouse GUI was the Xerox Alto.

#9 – James D. Watson

James  D. Watson and Francis Crick are universally hailed by biologists as great geniuses for being the DNA co-discoverers.

So why is he overrated? Firstly, the data Watson and Crick used was collected by Rosalind Franklin who is basically ignored. Secondly, proposing a double helix structure for DNA given x-ray data requires little ingenuity or intelligence. I guess this explains why Watson’s IQ is only 124 (Crick’s IQ was supposedly only 115). Thirdly, according to Watson himself Crick was more clever than him.

There are contributions that require little intellect but lots of ingenuity, there are contributions that require lots of intellect but little ingenuity, and there are contributions that require both intellect and ingenuity. This contribution however, doesn’t require neither ingenuity nor intellect, just simple observations.

If Watson and Crick didn’t discover the double-helix structure of DNA then virtually any other biologist(s) would have given the data. It’s a contribution based off simple observations that would’ve happened by virtually any biologist, not a special kind of contribution.

#8 – Michio Kaku

People who watch TV probably think Michio Kaku is one of the greatest living physicists, but physicists don’t. There’s probably not even one physicist who would rank Michio Kaku within the top 50 or even the top 100 best living physicists.

Michio Kaku has made some contributions, but he still isn’t even close to being one of the best physicists in modern times.

Michio Kaku is more of a media figure who writes on popular science and appears on radio and TV shows a lot.

Other physicists who are regarded as the best living physicist like Edward Witten are virtually ignored in the media.

#7 – Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking is overrated in the same manner that Michio Kaku is. People who watch TV probably think he’s one of the best living physicists even though he isn’t.

Just like Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking is a media figure. Other physicists like Steven Weinberg and Ed Witten are completely ignored in the media.

Just as with Michio Kaku there’s probably no working physicist who considers him to be the best physicist or even close even though the media portrays him to be the best physicist.

#6 – William James Sidis

When people talk about prodigies William J. Sidis is almost always mentioned. He was an extraordinarily fast learner and had an estimated IQ of 250-300.

There are many web sites dedicated to Sidis and his supposed “genius”. They will always mention how fast Sidis learned this, what he calculated, etc….but what about Sidis’s contributions?

William Sidis doesn’t have any significant contributions. That’s why he’s overrated. What’s so special about being a super-fast learner and contributing nothing significant? There is nothing special about it.

So what’s Sidis’s most significant contribution? A perpetual calendar?

#5 – Benjamin Franklin

When people who have no knowledge of science think about who made electrical technology possible they probably think of Benjamin Franklin.

The only problem is that Benjamin Franklin contributed very little to science and has very little to do with the advent of electrical technology.

The “key” story about Benjamin Franklin may also be a myth. He like other overrated geniuses on this list is just another media figure.

The actual scientists that were primarily responsible for making electrical technology possible were Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell who are both completely ignored in the media.

For Benjamin Franklin being so falsely associated with electrical technology he ranks as the 5th most overrated genius.

#4 – Thomas Edison

When people think of inventors Thomas Edison almost always come to mind. They probably think of a light bulb or a phonograph. He is a very celebrated figure in the media.

So why is Edison overrated? Edison has over 1000 patents (the 3rd most prolific inventor) but Edison bought many patents and was not the originator of many of the ideas. Edison had setup many different labs and had many others working on inventions. So the vast majority of Edison’s inventions do not independently come from Edison.

Edison was not even the first one to invent the incandescent light bulb. Edison and his team invented an improved version of the incandescent light bulb, many had existed before. Fluorescent light bulbs though are much more efficient and an overall better invention than incandescent light bulbs.

Other genius engineers like Nikola Tesla are almost ignored in the media.

Edison was not the genius inventor as portrayed by the media but instead a businessman.

Since Edison did not work independently and was mostly a businessman he ranks as the 4th most overrated genius.

#3 – Albert Einstein

So who’s the person who’s so associated with the word genius that the image or thought of him comes in mind when the word “genius” is mentioned? It’s got to be Einstein.

Einstein is overrated for many reasons. Many people seem to believe that Einstein was a great mathematician. They probably saw on TV “E=mc2” and thought he must have been a great mathematician but in reality Einstein was not a mathematician at all. Mathematicians make mathematical contributions, Einstein applied already existing mathematics (in this case Riemannian geometry).

Another reason that Einstein is overrated is because many people think his ideas were original, but they were not. Einstein seems to have gotten a lot of his ideas directly from Michael Faraday, who Einstein was a fan of. Faraday who is ignored in the media tried to unify gravity with other forces long before Einstein. Faraday had long emphasized his belief that everything was unified as one (magnetism, light, gravity, etc…) primarily because of his religion. The main difference between Einstein’s ideas and Faraday’s is that Einstein added in the space-time dimension, but this idea is not original either since it had already appeared in science fiction novels.

Einstein is also overrated for being known by many as the smartest person ever. Some people have “estimated” his IQ to be over 200 (which is most likely impossible). People like Newton, Archimedes, Gauss, and others were likely much smarter than Einstein but they are not portrayed as such in the media.

Since the mathematics for General Relativity came from Riemann, a lot of Einstein’s ideas are inspired from Faraday, and for Einstein being so synonymous with the word “genius” he ranks as the 3rd most overrated genius.

#2 – Pythagoras of Samos

When non-mathematicians think of the best mathematicians Pythagoras likely comes to mind. Most non-mathematicians probably think Pythagoras was the #1 mathematician or close to #1, but mathematicians don’t.

In reality Pythagoras is not the best mathematician or even close. People like NewtonEulerGaussRiemann, and many other mathematicians who are completely ignored in the media for their mathematical brilliance were much better much mathematicians than Pythagoras by far.

Euler and Gauss (the mathematicians that are arguably the two best of all time) are virtually ignored in the media. I wonder what things would be like if Euler and Gauss were mentioned in the media as much as Pythagoras is.

The Pythagorean theorem and a proof of the Pythagorean theorem are not difficult things to discover. There exists literally hundreds of different proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. Most of what Pythagoras and his students did are not difficult to discover or re-discover. Just compare re-discovering the Pythagorean theorem to rediscovering Euler’s identity and it’s easy to see which requires more ingenuity.

Even though it’s true that Pythagoras and his students made some contributions Pythagoras is still far from ranking within the top 10 or top 20 best mathematicians, which is why he is one of the most super-overrated figures.

Since the vast majority of Pythagoras’s contributions are easy to re-discover and since Pythagoras is synonymous with the word “mathematician” despite being far from the best mathematician he ranks as the 2nd most overrated genius.

#1 - Leonardo da Vinci

So who’s the most super-overrated genius of all time? It’s Leonardo da Vinci.

Da Vinci is universally hailed as one of the greatest geniuses of all time. He is celebrated for his art, inventions, science, and being multi-talented.

Leonardo da Vinci is the most overrated genius of all time mainly because of the many outlandish claims made about how much of a genius he was.

Many different sources have “estimated” Da Vinci’s IQ to be over 200. This however is quite impossible. It’s literally impossible that Da Vinci had an IQ of 200+. Whenever asked for legitimate reasons as to how Da Vinci could of had an IQ of 200+ people will usually respond with an appeal to authority saying something like “this expert said so” or “this person said so”.

Da Vinci himself said “Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory”.

In order to correctly estimate IQ you have to estimate how well someone would be able to answer the most difficult IQ-style questions.

I know that Da Vinci’s IQ would not be any higher than 160 based on some simple observations:
- At least half of Da Vinci’s inventions failed when tested, this does not show high IQ at all
- Da Vinci tried to learn mathematics but didn’t really get very far
- Da Vinci was not a super-fast learner (the main sign of high IQ)
- Da Vinci’s works do not require a high IQ

Nothing Da Vinci did demonstrates that he had an IQ of 200 or higher or even close to that. Da Vinci is so overrated that people think his IQ was higher than Newton’s. But how could that be possible? Newton did things like solving the brachistochrone problem in a few hours, but what did Leonardo da Vinci do to demonstrate his intelligence? I would be surprised if Da Vinci had an IQ higher than 140.

Da Vinci’s inventions have also been grossly exaggerated. Da Vinci drew drawings and different people have personally interpreted some of the same drawings to mean different things. This has been the case with Da Vinci’s supposed calculator. Objectors once again claim this device wouldn’t actually work and isn’t actually a drawing of a calculator, but people personally interpret it to be so.

This is also the case with Da Vinci’s supposed helicopter. It’s not really a helicopter, it’s just an aerial screw. Helicopters are closer to Chinese bamboo toys than they are to Da Vinci’s sketches. The media and others simply overrated Da Vinci so much they decided to call it a helicopter (some how).

Da Vinci never actually built or tested most of his inventions and at least half of them failed when tested. The vast majority of the models of Da Vinci’s designs that really do work are modified versions of Da Vinci’s designs or strange interpretations of what Da Vinci’s designs mean. In order to get most of Da Vinci’s designs to work modifications are necessary.

The more people test out Da Vinci’s designs the more people find that his designs don’t work. What’s genius about coming up with failed designs? Basically anyone who has artistic talent, an IQ of 130 or higher, and spends all their time focusing on inventing new machines would be able to come up with lots of inventions (and having half of them fail).

Da Vinci being far ahead of his time is also an exaggerated claim. Da Vinci was born in the year 1452 AD, not the year 287 BC like Archimedes. Basically everything Da Vinci had done had been independently re-discovered without much effort by others within 200 years or less or had been done prior to Da Vinci. Since at least half of Da Vinci’s designs didn’t work I’m not sure how much it would have mattered if Da Vinci’s writings had been discovered much earlier. During Da Vinci’s time being ahead of your time didn’t take much.

Other much better engineers like HeronArchimedesAl-Jazari, and Tesla are ignored in the media.

Al-Jazari for instance pre-dates Da Vinci by more than 200 years, he invented one of the first programmable analog computers, camshaft, segmented gears, and more. His book is much more detailed than Leonardo da Vinci’s drawings, all of his designs work, and even though he pre-dates Da Vinci he is completely ignored in the media.

Or what about the super-genius engineer and mathematician Archimedes, who pre-dates Da Vinci by more than 1600 years. He is also ignored in the media.

Da Vinci is perhaps one of the greatest genius idiots of all time. For Da Vinci being so super-overrated that people think his IQ was 200+, for at least half of Da Vinci’s designs not working, for his inventions being grossly overrated, and for the media and many others super-overrating him he ranks as the #1 very most overrated person of all time.

There doesn’t even exist one other genius in all of human history as overrated as Da Vinci.

From my list we can see that the media is full of lies and exaggerations. Those are all my thoughts on who’s overrated. I wonder how controversial my claims may become…

785 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. Hailey Reisner / Nov 11 2014 11:18 pm

    What’s worse is that when Kaku talks about the discovery of DNA in Physics of the Future he talks about both Watson and Crick but does not so much as mention Rosalind Franklin.

  2. James / Nov 11 2014 5:11 pm

    Steve Jobs should.be no.1 on the list followed by Nik Tesla and Bill Nye.

  3. tony naples / Nov 9 2014 8:07 am

    You fail on many counts.

  4. Jose de Agora / Oct 19 2014 5:26 pm

    I was trying to find credible sources to validate my theories that many people deemed “genius” are simply overrated (great) scientists. However, I’ve stumbled upon your web site, and I truly know you, on the other hand, are not the smartest guy around. You seriously rely on something as IQ to “guarantee” whether someone could be a genius or not? Seriously? Yes, I agree on many of your points regarding overrated scientists like Einstein (he was brilliant, but not the epitome of “genius” when compared to many others). However, da Vinci… you just killed it right there. Your arguments fail to weigh da Vinci’s genius in HIS own time (before Newton, before Gauss, before Euler) and the fact that he was a bastard (no legal recognition from his father). which meant he couldn’t aspire to formal education at the time, and yet, he single-handedly discovered and elaborated numberless facts/theories in multiple fields. Your criticism is highly anachronistic in Leonardo’s case.

  5. This Blogger is an Ass / Oct 19 2014 4:55 pm

    The blogger is surely an underrated Arse.

  6. Anonymous / Oct 17 2014 8:10 am

    Leonardo da Vinci <= 160. There is only one overrated person here and it's the blogger.

  7. acids and bases / Oct 17 2014 12:20 am

    Hey there! Do you know if they make any plugins to assist with SEO?
    I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good success.
    If you know of any please share. Thanks!

  8. Anonymous / Oct 14 2014 10:44 am

    I just can;t understand one thing, how come you say that Leonardo Da Cinci was nothing more then an failure and yet still write about him so much, and before you say that I had to read everything you wrote I will answer: yes I red everything you wrote about everyone from the list

  9. Stefan K / Oct 9 2014 5:00 pm

    Leonardo Da Vinci and Einstein are overrated? You are truly an idiot.

  10. Anonymous / Oct 6 2014 9:50 am

    Your arguments aren’t convincing because you don’t show any kind of evidence. Franklin a media person, for who!? Hahaha. Also, you bash geniuses in the past without consideration that their ideas were beyond that of their time. It’s like saying Da Vinci wasn’t smart because he didn’t know how to fix a computer, when we all know you should only make arguments based on the time they lived in.

  11. Anonymous / Sep 29 2014 8:31 pm

    Such a bullshit list. Sorry, but Leonardo da Vinci was a true pioneer in many fields and ultimately was the very definition of a genius. It’s non debatable or any opinion, it’s fact period……………………

  12. Swarup Mondal / Sep 27 2014 1:15 pm

    I searched “Geniuses of Leonardo Da Vinci” and came across your list. I didn’t even see who is there from 2 to 10. All I want to say that you are an arrogant retard who can’t even be the gazillionth percentage of what Da Vinci was. People like you will never be able to understand his intellect. And I really hope that there are no other people like you on this earth, who does not have anything else to do except generalizing with the highest possible information your brain could hold.

  13. Alexander / Sep 26 2014 11:59 pm

    Are you kidding me? Are you actually serious?
    “– At least half of Da Vinci’s inventions failed when tested, this does not show high IQ at all”
    this is a mere conjecture. please understand that your opinion does not do well to persuade anyone that Da Vinci wasn’t what one might consider a genius.
    Same with basically all your other arguments, I think your just butthurt that you never grew up to contribute anything useful to society besides your weightless opinions.

  14. ketone Ultra review / Sep 13 2014 12:17 am

    Can I simply say what a relief to discover a person that really understands what they are
    talking about on the net. You certainly know how to bring a problem to
    light and make it important. More and more people have to read this and understand this side of your story.
    It’s surprising you’re not more popular since
    you surely possess the gift.

  15. http://code-promo-amazon.blogspot.fr / Sep 10 2014 8:48 am

    This is very interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger.
    I’ve joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your great post.

    Also, I’ve shared your site in my social networks!

  16. Anon / Sep 7 2014 7:01 am

    Agree especially about Da Vinci. I would also have include both Tesla and Darwin as overrated. The former, more of an inventor than true Engineer or Scientist. Did he ever get any university degrees? Darwin, a shy man was much more at home prodding along in his laboratory; he was the perfect personalityof a lab-rat to cope with the painstaking tedium of demonstrating theories on evolution…much of which was commonplace philosophy in his day and before and not originated by him.

    • Anonymous / Oct 18 2014 8:09 pm

      Darwin never claimed to have originated the idea of evolution. Many had hinted at the process, including his own grandfather Erasmus Darwin. What Darwin did was discover, and document, a mechanism for evolution, namely natural selection, i. e, how and why evolution occurs. And he didn’t develop the theory in the “laboratory”. It came from five years of observation in the field. And he had no philosophical axe to grind. He started out a devout Christian and creationist. He fought the idea of natural selection for years before he finally had to accept his own conclusions.

  17. Australian art / Sep 6 2014 3:07 pm

    I’ve been browsing on-line more than three hours lately, but I by no means found any attention-grabbing
    article like yours. It’s pretty worth sufficient for me.
    Personally, if all site owners and bloggers made excellent content as
    you did, the web shall be much more useful than ever before.

  18. SpiderSilva / Aug 30 2014 4:25 pm

    I like how you criticize people for using appeal to authority arguments when they try to prove how great Da Vinci was, even though you essentially did the same thing when you tried to tear down Kaku and Hawking.

    “Just as with Michio Kaku there’s probably no working physicist who considers him to be the best physicist or even close even though the media portrays him to be the best physicist.”

    You never actually explain what makes them overrated, I’m guessing this is because you don’t really understand what you’re talking about.

    Also, you don’t have to make world-changing contributions to science to be a genius. Anyone can be a genius, but not everyone chooses to devote it to science. That’s not a crime.

  19. JD / Aug 28 2014 12:06 pm

    Wow. Its obvious you are angry. You are correct about the media. You are certainly correct about Edison, he was a liar, thief, and a fraud. But you should have made a list of the most underrated, spread that awareness of those that were screwed over like Tesla. Contributions don’t make a genius, powerful thinking does. And buddy you’re not thinking to clearly. Some of these men are more brilliant than you could ever imagine yourself being. Inventing is trial and error, you cannot county the times someone failed, that is literally how greatness is developed..learning from mistakes and not being afraid to make them. Do you have high blood pressure? You seem worked up, angry and bitter. I hope you don’t write for a living because calling your writing mediocre would be a complement. You must not be, or you’d have put your name on your rediculous opinions.

  20. Shaun Rosenberg / Aug 23 2014 9:44 am

    Trial and error is a big part of inventing. You could have an IQ of 200 and many of the things you invent would still fail. It just means you are branching out to new territories and discovering things that haven’t been discovered yet. Most of the men on this list were geniuses of their time.

  21. Hi, I want to subscribe for this web site to take newest updates, thus where can i do
    it please help.

  22. Anonymous / Aug 15 2014 1:44 am

    Personally, I believe the author is absolutely correct in his rankings, most of these men did little more than screw around with little toys and thoughts until they worked, after maybe the 10th try. Where as individuals of a von Neumann or Archimedes caliber would have (and were) inherently been consistently more successful.

  23. Ahmed Malek / Aug 14 2014 8:31 pm

    I usually like to to debate with people with statistics and facts… But with this article, I cannot debate… I can only state facts because apparently u are so ignorant that u wrote that Leonardo Da Vinci created a drawing of a helicopter. But actually, he created the design of the ornithopter, on which modern days helicopters’ concept are based on. If u look at the design, u will find that it doesn’t resemble a helicopter at all, but actually the mechanical concept of the ornithopter was taken to create what is know now as helicopters

  24. Anonymous / Aug 12 2014 4:06 am

    You’re absolutely ignorant… Seems like you did a few minutes of research on everybody and found a few flaws.. What really aggravated me was your outlook on Leonardo di ser Piero Da Vinci.. Nobody can possibly measure that mans IQ. IQ doesn’t measure creativeness, imagine or somebody grit and drive. He is possibly one of the most under rated genius of all time. Congratulations on letting everybody know some of kid inventions failed through a trial and error process…. Find something else to blog about please. I don’t even have the time to explain all the amazing things he has accomplished… Just FYI he technically invented the first programmable computer and in 2012 nasa sent his robot into space.

    • jjttppjll / Aug 12 2014 1:00 pm

      butt hurt much! DaDolty was moron!

  25. jojo / Aug 7 2014 7:55 pm

    See several people on this list who were suspected aspies and/or suspected to have add or other conditions that explain the “reasons” for their shortcomings. All data must be included inorder to accurately determine whether your claims have any merit

  26. Miguel / Aug 6 2014 8:17 am

    IQ is only part of intelligence. Creativity, fast thinking skills, understanding and many more factor contribute to someones intelligence. If you think that IQ is intelligence, then you are mistaken. I’ll make it simple, if you can do something which contributes to society more than any of them, then I will believe you. Otherwise, this is mostly bullshit. Although, they don’t have high IQ, at least they made it famous rather than let the knowledge rot with those unknown scientist. Also, I’m pretty sure that if Einstein, Edison and those other famous scientist exist now, they would invent better thing because of the modern technology. Da Vinci might not be a genius, but he has the willingness to devote your life to studying and trying to contribute unlike you ungrateful people who complains about what they do but contribute nothing. People in that time did not even have a proper school to go to or any technology. Still Da Vinci actually got those ideas. If I threw you back in that time, I think you wouldn’t even be able to read.

  27. Bob Gloyd / Jul 30 2014 11:05 pm

    Great overall and insightful list. Thank you :-) So, who would you consider to be our leading contemporary ish thought leaders?

  28. fzBap / Jul 29 2014 6:29 am

    movie stream sockshare Watch The Fault in Our Stars Online for free movie review christian

  29. Anonymous / Jul 27 2014 8:17 pm

    Whoever wrote this is just another idiot who thinks IQ=everything. Its near impossible to measure the scope of ones true intelligence. The fact is nobody knows who this author is (or cares really) and all these men have contributed and shown genius in some form.

  30. Ryan Schick / Jul 27 2014 3:10 pm

    Everyone on this list is smarter than you, stop trying to narrow it down to you being the smartest person on earth.

    • Anonymous / Aug 1 2014 5:51 pm

      ^genius. The list make’s Weinberg and Witten seem like sore losers or something. I’m sure they’re just as humble as those on the list.

  31. Anonymous / Jul 25 2014 8:18 am

    You don’t have to have an high IQ to think.. You don’t get born with an high IQ, people with high IQ is people who think instead of learn.. Some of the guys you had on the list is overrated. But people like da vinci and einstein are thinkers. They did things they wasn’t afraid to think and come up with crazy ideas. I think you are being really stupid who tries to explain wich guys who should be reminded as awesome people or not.

  32. a fisherman / Jul 24 2014 4:24 pm

    This guy considers himself worthy of determining who is or isn’t a genius? It follows from that notion that he also considers himself capable of understanding everything about all of their works. Only the greatest of geniuses could achieve that level of understanding. That would imply that the author is one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived-probably the most underrated.

    However, his poor grammar and unsubstantiated premises undermine any logical progression and disprove his ability to formulate a cogent thesis. He clearly does not possess enough intellect to make such a list.

  33. Anonymous / Jul 21 2014 1:08 pm

    This is the most retarded list ever

  34. Anonymous / Jul 20 2014 7:37 am

    The least the author could do is substantiate these arrogant claims to these renowned figures. Saying things like

    everyone thinks he is a good physicist even though he isnt, without explaining why just makes the writer look stupid

  35. jmercer / Jul 20 2014 7:17 am

    I have to agree with you, especially about DaVinci being overrated.
    He was just a reasonably intelligent artist and inventor, but nothing more
    He didn’t create anything really extraordinary, and that includes the MonaLisa.

  36. Leeroy / Jul 15 2014 4:27 pm

    Good lord, the man is mostly right, I take minor exception to his interpretation of Einstein, but even there he has a point that I considered myself whilst still in secondary school, why were both Gauss and riemann not credited with anything. I still don’t understand this. That being said Einsteins innovation was in imagination. Also the interpretation of Pythagoras seems a bit harsh. The rest can stand as I see it. I see genius in people everyday that they do not give any credence too. It is simply the absence of fear that lets the mind soar, nothing more. The fearless few who have ventured deeper within themselves are geniuses. Nothing exists but that in thine own mind, nothing at all. Nothing has ever existed in that fashion, nothing ever will. Consciousness is the root, the branch and the soil.

  37. football / Jul 13 2014 11:52 am

    Get focused and devoted and locate a spot where you can play daily, whether with peers
    or other footballers. Gene Wojciechowski’s ode to college football is a great read.
    So besides the fact that both sports are being played
    with 11 players on the field, the similarity ends here.

  38. Weltz / Jul 10 2014 12:35 pm

    Not to mention that in arts he was grossely surpassed by Michelangelo, who actually worked hard to bring life to giants and saints

  39. Anonymous / Jul 9 2014 6:54 am

    Da Vinci was a genius. To understand his true intellect, which I doubt your feeble mind could perceive, you first have to understand the setting of his life. He was born in the 1400s in Europe. There were no major scientific minds in the entire continent at that time. Most intellectuals were in the Middle East. The Europeans were simple minded. Secondly, all of his inventions failed because of the lack of technology and resources. Roughly 150 if his inventions have been replicated and proven to work in the past 10 years. That huge bridge in Istanbul that everyone said wouldn’t work when he suggested it? Guess what, it’s being built in the next year. So suck it

  40. Anonymous / Jul 8 2014 10:11 pm

    Now, let me tell you why this list is bs

  41. Anonymous / Jul 8 2014 7:55 pm

    Author is the most underrated moron

  42. Anonymous / Jul 5 2014 1:31 pm

    Wow, what an idiotic list. Are you somewhat retarded?

  43. Anonymous / Jul 4 2014 9:18 pm

    When you said that many of Da Vinci’s inventions failed, I was confused. A fundamental part of science are expirements. Thousands of expirements fail; when you fail you also may succeed a little. It may seem like an oxymoron, but when that invention fails, in Da Vinci’s case, he knew that that airplane or aircraft or whatever won’t work so he wouldn’t use that design again. As most people know failing in an expirement or invention is expected and normal.

  44. Anonymous / Jul 4 2014 3:04 pm

    Stupidest shit I have ever read

  45. Anonymous / Jul 4 2014 11:25 am

    This is how I know you are stupid. Einstein does not need to be a mathematician to contribute E=mc2. He used physics to make the formula, so he did contribute E=mc2. For his rudimentary knowledge, physics and math go hand-in-hand. You are probably just a noob or hater who is jealous of other people who achieved more than you ever will. Ergo, you try to make other people think that they are overrated. A hairy asshair is plausibly smarter than you. And, Leonardo da Vinci was a genuis, in no way overrated. He was a virtuoso. He was an engineer, painter, artist, inventor, teacher, singer, and probably one associated with aliens (why would aliens choose him if he were not worthy or smart enough). Pythagoras’s Pythagorean Theorem is easy, because he was able to explain it easily, whereas you probably have a hard time accentuating things. Plus, just because people are well- known and teach lectures to people on TV, it doesn’t mean that they are overrated. It just means that they are known for their awesome contributions.

    Take that noob.
    -Justice Chukwuma

    • Anonymous / Jul 4 2014 11:31 am

      *For your rudimentary knowledge, physics and math go hand-in-hand.
      -Justice Chukwuma

  46. ABluntPreacher / Jun 27 2014 2:38 am

    In what way, other than stating your own opinion, did you empirically cirtisize these supossedly “over-rated” scientists? Phygoreas is a bad mathematicion because a suared plus b squared = C squared is easy to understand? I don’t understand your logic? Geneisu’s make things simple and it is exactly for that reason as to why they are celebrated; that is, because they can explain things in a way the ” layman ” can understand them they are genuses. Trig’s foundations are build of A squared et cetera. So your argument is that the rudimentary or fundamental components of the sciences should be discredited because they are eastablished and; therefore, easier to understand? Such stupidity.

    • ABluntPreacher / Jun 27 2014 2:39 am

      Sorry about the spelling the form was cut off and it didn’t allow me to see the lower half of my words.

  47. Top Eleven Token Hilesi 2014 indir / Jun 21 2014 10:45 am

    I am not positive the place you are getting your information, however good
    topic. I needs to spend a while learning much more or working out more.
    Thank you for fantastic information I was searching for this information for my mission.

  48. ilol'd / Jun 20 2014 10:35 am

    Greatest troll article on the interwebz.
    If not a troll(which I really hope you are), then you are the biggest idiot living on this planet right now. Congratulations!

  49. appetite suppressant / Jun 20 2014 8:16 am

    This basically suggests that you will be able to eat anything that you
    want without the worry of gaining weight. The issues that come with using Adiphene make it one
    of the most essential supplements that anyone can use for weight loss purposes.
    For your self-guidance, are able to go through top quality weight loss product
    reviews and are allowed to know upon the most-sought after available inside the
    market from the reputed pharmaceutical brands.

  50. It can make your skin feel dry and tight and is not a good choice for your use.
    Metallic will get sizzling if you polish it with power tools so
    be careful. A modern jet airliner cruises at an altitude of 12,000 metres, consequently jets
    flying through contaminated airspace would need to fly through the ash cloud
    when attaining their cruising altitude and when descending to land.

  51. Dear Undergrad / Jun 15 2014 2:06 pm

    Good day, author of this post!

    From what I can gather about your fervent ardor to prove that many an intelligent individual is no more frustratingly attention-seeking than a reality-show on Georgian rednecks, you are nothing more than an undergraduate pursuing a course which he or she arguably shows dwindling interest in. No other individual of your kind could possess such excess time to spew misinformed opinions all over the world wide web.

    Now listen to me, undergrad. What I picked up after skimming through your article is that you did not establish what a ‘genius’ is. A genius could be a theoretical physicist at CERN, or the guy who fixed his bacon and eggs for breakfast. This goes to show that your list holds nearly no weight in a strong debate arena, undergrad. Okay, you’re only an undergrad, so that’s excusable. But what is NOT so tolerable is that you’re ignoring the fact that many these men are, undoubtedly, successful and influential in today’s world. They have impacted global communities past and present, and continue to shape society into the great brilliance of kindling human life that it is today.

    So, undergrad, in the eyes of many, this is a meaningless article that does not further the pursuit of any form of knowledge really. More rather, it is counter-intuitive to logical idea of these men as great and influential figures in our scientific and literary community. To me, your arguments are just unfortunate manifestations of pure stupid. Anyway, this message is in no way trying to sound like prior comments which may or may not harshly criticize this article, and I apologize if it sounded like it did. The idea I’m trying to convey here is that you are an absolute waste of anyone’s time and I would like to devote no further attention to your opinions. Good luck reading books and being a productive member of society, undergrad. Hope to see you giving a resounding speech at a Nobel Prize Award reception ceremony one day.

  52. steve anariono / Jun 14 2014 4:34 pm

    It’s funny you mention Ed Witten being ignored, he won the fundamental Physics Prize – the most prestigious and lucrative award around today – but he’s not the only winner. Old Stevey Hawking won it in 2012.

    “Professor Nima Arkani-Hamed, a member of the Selection Committee, said that the winners of the Fundamental Physics Prize “have done transformative work spanning a wide range of areas in fundamental physics.””

    While Ed Witten is absolutely the superior to Hawking the divide is not as tremendous as you make it sound. Hawking is easily one of the more important thinkers in the last 100 years and I don’t think Hawking’s peers are as down on him as you infer. Just because someone is famous does not mean they are over rated, I don’t think you understand that at all.

    And now to forget about you, you’re shitty blog and your stupid list…… almost…. and…

  53. steve anariono / Jun 14 2014 4:16 pm

    Only idiots consider Einstein a mathematician, he’s a well known physicist and made one of the greatest contributions (theory of general relativity) to modern man’s understanding of the universe. All you bring up is pop culture bullshib for the sake of making a list bashing great thinkers. Some of your points are valid but do not necessarily make someone less impactful or make them ‘overrated’. Intelligence is a relative term, Bill Gates looks dumb shopping at wal mart or waxing a floor, you’d probably look dumb in a boardroom or a physics laboratory. So who is this list for? People who don’t know who Michael Faraday is? Well, great list, keep up the entertainment so other’s can overrate your arbitrary and mean spirited list. (Watson was also a racist, forget to mention that about the Nobel laureate).

  54. Anirban Mandal / Jun 11 2014 12:00 pm

    By the way!! What are you a physicst , artist what??? Stop fooling arround!! As far as i know the mens who are more intelligent keep low profile and stay away from media!! And One more thing media dont give a hype on smartest persons as becoz most of the peoples will not be able to even understand the ideas of guys like edward witten!! So thats why media approaches those mens who can understood more easily!! By the way ask edward witten he will also agree einstein was the smartest physicst till today!! And may stay as the most smartest physicst in the history of theoritical physics!!

  55. very annoyed / Jun 9 2014 10:48 pm

    You should sell your computer and break your router.

    • Anonymous / Jul 6 2014 3:57 pm

      Hahaha! You’ve made my day mate!

  56. งานออนไลน์ / Jun 6 2014 11:11 pm

    Hey, I think your website might be having browser compatibility issues.
    When I look at your website in Firefox, it looks fine but when opening in Internet
    Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a
    quick heads up! Other then that, great blog!

  57. Anonymous / Jun 3 2014 8:44 pm

    You have to realize that leonardo de vinci was in the renaissance era and technology wasnt as advanced , lots of invections were actually based on his blue prints

  58. Kiddy / Jun 1 2014 6:34 am

    You do make some good points however!!!

  59. Kiddy / Jun 1 2014 6:30 am

    And who are you to criticize these how overrated these men are what have you done for the world that’s of any level of significance In comparison to these guys? Your just an insignificant critic mate!!!

  60. Jason / May 31 2014 11:24 pm

    You say Edison was not a genius because he purchased most of his patents??? Even if that was the case, I think that fact alone (again, if true) makes him even more of a genius. He was able to see the value in others work and then capitalize (ever heard the saying “work smarter NOT harder”….Einstein was living that motto way ahead if his time)…..

  61. Anonymous / May 29 2014 7:42 pm

    When you write sentences like this, you disqualify yourself as an authority on intelligence: “Whenever asked for legitimate reasons as to how Da Vinci could of had an IQ of 200+ people will usually respond with an appeal to authority saying something like “this expert said so” or “this person said so”.” Find the mistake.

  62. Jack / May 27 2014 12:35 am

    The reason Leonardo Da Vinci is hailed as such a genius is because he was so well-rounded. He didn’t have a specialty, he was very artistic and creative as well as analytic and scientific. There have been better artists and better scientists but no one in history has such a versatile skill set. Also, did you know that Michio Kaku built his very own particle accelerator when he was 16 years old? The only two I would agree with are James Watson and Thomas Edison. Dr. Watson completely ripped Rosalind Franklin off and Edison is hailed as such a great innovater because he had geniuses like Nikola Tesla work for him for so long.

  63. Fuck u / May 21 2014 2:21 am

    Fucking retard. How is Albert Einstein overrated? He created light !!!!!! EVERYTHING ALMOST EVERYTHING HAS SOMETHING INVOLCING LIGHT

    • Danny Bennett / May 23 2014 10:27 am

      Einstein created light?

      • Wog / Jun 4 2014 12:43 pm

        Lol… And Albert said: LET THERE BE LIGHT!!!!!

    • Tracy Mitchell / Jul 24 2014 10:41 am

      Edison did NOT Create light! Edison was a childeler, opportunistic business man out to pad his own pockets on the back and minds of other scientists/inventors, and buy up patents or have his patents reworked by true Genius’ Genius such as Nikola Tesla. When he felt threatened by such a Genius, then he tried to squash him (same as JP Morgan and other greedy monopolistic tyrants) and was undoubtedly responsible for burning down 2 of teslas labs that he felt threatend by or that Tesla as his direct competition! Tesla engineered and invented much more efficient light bulbs, including a the much more efficient alternating current system by which we all use and run everything modern today. If we were to have continued on with Edison, Non of this would have been possible. Tesla had several degrees in Physics, Mathematics, Engineering degrees in both machinical and electical applications…and as such embodied everthoing which in modern times would qualify him with all the sciences knowledge base without mentioning his own imaginative creations based on our natural world in which he proclaimed himself a discover! Tesla was also the inventor of wireless and wired radio, NOT Marconi, of whom tesla tried to graciously help by opening up his labs, housing marconi and allowing him to use his own patents and information that Tesla had developed. As such, Marconi would later make claims to fame stating he had accomplished radio (when in fact Nikola Tesla had a proven working model of wireless radio nearly 20 years earlier, (although this technology was prolonged by “someone” bruning down Teslas lab housing all the physical evidence as part of this act of arsen, not once, but twice)… as such Marconi using Teslas patents and information falsely won a Nobel prize in physics in 1909. Ironically, Tesla had earlier turned down the Nobel Price in Physics because they wanted to offer it on contigency that it be accepted with Edison, of whom Tesla had worked for when first coming to the USA…and consequentially had reworked many of Edisons patents and repaired many of Edisons already installed/instate money making/profit generated opertunistic inventions much of which were based on others original ideas, designs, creations and patents of which Edison did indeed exploit or purchase/gain righst to. Much of the same as Westinghouse or others had exploited Teslas Genius and inventions and gained rights or consumed Teslas patents on A/C or others! In 1944 Marconi’s patents rights to radio were overturned by the United States Supreme Court sighting that his patent was based upon direct works, ideas, creations and previous patents of Nikola Tesla, of which Radio was rightfully founded, discovered, proven and invented! Finaly, total vindication to the rightful inventor/discoverer and patent holder, and just before the death of this true Genius, Nikola Tesla! The true Genius’ Genius was Nikola Tesla, mistreated by his own Country, Government and Selfish industrial monopolizing moguls of the times, and instead tried to squash his existence and memory…while discounting his genius by spreading false rumors that he was insane and other nonsense (just because he spoke of things they could not understand or feared he would provide something to a world like free power, of which they could not “meter it” and make profit from the masses)! BTW, when Einstein was asked: “What does it feel like to be the smartest man inthe world”, Einstein asnwered: “I don’t know, you would have to ask Nikola Tesla”. Einstein also referred to Nikola Tesla as the “Genius’ Genius” proclaiming that “He (Tesla) knew what protons, nutrons and electrons were before they even know what to call them, and how Tesla had warned against men playing like children with Nucleur physics (particularly the Atom Bomb), with something they shant not and the consequences that could prevail from such! Furthermore, no man ever truly creates or invents anything that in actuality he only discovers what God has created! Such as science is nothing more than men trying to understand their world around them, and many times out of their own frail, insecure, inadequate and imperfect / infallable ways of doing so. What men call facts or truths, God only smiles at, because he knows nothing is truly impossible with faith in him, and through hiim all things are possible! Finally, if something is invented by men like Tesla or Paul Pantone or whomever, and someone in power or perhaps someone that would lose money due to it’s coming out and by which may benefit the masses/mankind worldwide, then those entities in power or with the money will find a way to squash such a person….even if by imprisonment, making claims of that person being insane/unstable and by such discreting them, stealing their patents or consuming their ideas or making claims to false patents (or manipulating the patent process altogether via screening or other questionable practices) or in some cases mysterious deaths such as suicides or what could be a suspicious homicide what some would claim was a natural death! Truth is history, media, educational teachings and certain permited books allowed in schools today are nothing more than the same prolific propogation of men brainwashing generations. As was once said that history is nothing more than a few men who have agreed upon what lies that they believe the majority will accept/swallow…and then of course spread that rumor by all means possible! BTW, Many of Teslas papers were confiscated by the US Governement and to this day many have been withheld for national security purposes. I find it humorous that a man that everyone in power, and who claimed was mad or losing his mind, yet wanted to confiscate all his paperworks, studies or belongings, hide inventions or what he might have also developed or was working on. :) I’ll leave the rest to the intelligent & perceptive / discerning minds out there!

      • Tracy Mitchell / Jul 24 2014 10:48 am

        OOps looks like spell checker or some kind of changes got made in my comment, I meant that he was a chiseler/swindler NOT CHILDELER which is an obvious typ or something changing my test during the posting process. Sorry, but just wanted to clarify this or excuse any other typos in my reply

  64. Anonymous / May 15 2014 3:02 am

    dumbest Top 10 i’ve ever seen
    I think you overrate you yourself

    • Dear Undergrad / Jun 15 2014 2:05 pm

      Good day, author of this post!

      From what I can gather about your fervent ardor to prove that many an intelligent individual is no more frustratingly attention-seeking than a reality-show on Georgian rednecks, you are nothing more than an undergraduate pursuing a course which he or she arguably shows dwindling interest in. No other individual of your kind could possess such excess time to spew misinformed opinions all over the world wide web.

      Now listen to me, undergrad. What I picked up after skimming through your article is that you did not establish what a ‘genius’ is. A genius could be a theoretical physicist at CERN, or the guy who fixed his bacon and eggs for breakfast. This goes to show that your list holds nearly no weight in a strong debate arena, undergrad. Okay, you’re only an undergrad, so that’s excusable. But what is NOT so tolerable is that you’re ignoring the fact that many these men are, undoubtedly, successful and influential in today’s world. They have impacted global communities past and present, and continue to shape society into the great brilliance of kindling human life that it is today.

      So, undergrad, in the eyes of many, this is a meaningless article that does not further the pursuit of any form of knowledge really. More rather, it is counter-intuitive to logical idea of these men as great and influential figures in our scientific and literary community. To me, your arguments are just unfortunate manifestations of pure stupid. Anyway, this message is in no way trying to sound like prior comments which may or may not harshly criticize this article, and I apologize if it sounded like it did. The idea I’m trying to convey here is that you are an absolute waste of anyone’s time and I would like to devote no further attention to your opinions. Good luck reading books and being a productive member of society, undergrad. Hope to see you giving a resounding speech at a Nobel Prize Award reception ceremony one day.

  65. heros de camelot hack / May 12 2014 6:15 pm

    Good day! I know this is kinda off topic but I’d figured I’d ask.
    Would you be interested in trading links or maybe guest writing a blog article or vice-versa?

    My website addresses a lot of the same subjects as yours and I feel we could greatly benefit from each other.
    If you’re interested feel free to send me an email.
    I look forward to hearing from you! Superb blog by the way!

    • bachelorsquared / May 26 2014 7:45 am

      are you really planning to take this clown as a partner for your blog?

  66. anonymous / May 12 2014 3:25 pm

    Before estimating a genuine GENIUS or deny what he gave to the world, just go ahead and TRY do the quarter of what they did. Discover a new physic fact or demonstrate one of the many unjustified mathematic theories and even if you did, you won’t have the right to under estimate them for the one ane only reason that you are litteraly living of what they made of this world. You are using a computer that YOU did NOT create and writing in a blog (I don’t think you created blogs, did you?) and wrinting in english that you probably don’t master and DEFINITELY dind’t create.
    P.S.: Do you know what e=mc² means ? Do you know how your computer really works ? Do you know how to paint with perfect color match and appropriate shadows ? If your teacher didn’t tell you about Pythagoras’s triangle theorie, would you discover it while playing with your friends ? Do you know how the solar system works ? Do you know how the electricity in your house is produced ? Do you have any idea how much these “Overrated” –as you say– geniuses worked and how hard they tried to do what they did ?
    Learn a little bit. When you can call yourself educated and intellectual (because it’s clear from what you wrote that you are absolutely not) then you may have the ability to comment on their work, but you can never judge them or give them a status or estimate their IQ.

    • Anonymous / May 28 2014 10:34 am

      You, my good sir, are completely correct. Of course, Thomas Edison is an overrated genius. He completely ripped off Nikola Tesla.

  67. Anonymous / May 8 2014 5:54 pm

    Whoever wrote this is an idiot

  68. james bergerac / May 8 2014 8:32 am

    i totally agree with you about kaku and hawking – they are media figures with the intention of getting non-scientific people to think about science (a waste of time if you ask me)

  69. Jack Drummond / May 8 2014 12:12 am

    Well, it sounds like someone has some jealousy going on

  70. This fucktard blogger's tranny mom / Apr 27 2014 2:08 pm

    Agreed on the Einstein and Michio’s part. But Thomas Alva Edison has invented like a dozens of important things that are used even today. He is a genius and not overrated. I mean no fucking one blabs about Edison so much as they do about Einstein.
    And perhaps your mom has cock through with you came out you fucktard for calling da Vinci overrated. Just do some fucking research and also give your mom a fucking head before you write such shit

  71. Anonymous / Apr 24 2014 9:24 am

    the author is either a troll or a dumbfuck

  72. Red Water / Apr 22 2014 7:45 am

    Da Vinci had some interesting ideas, but most of his “inventions” are kind of stupid, and would never work anyway. Except maybe in Road Runner & Wile E Coyote cartoons. I can just picture the old man sitting on the floor playing with his Lego Technic stuff.

    He was a damn good painter though.

  73. garym53 / Apr 21 2014 7:27 pm

    Right at the top this fool uses the word “atheists”, as a result you can discard every subsequent word.

  74. Anonymous / Apr 13 2014 1:20 pm

    Arrogant fool.

  75. Anonymous / Apr 11 2014 6:55 pm

    1.You know nothing of physics if you think Einstein did nothing original. Certainly, the special theory of relativity would have been described around that time without Einstein, but the general theory was a non-intuitive and completely amazing paper. Physics students of today do not even start to learn it till masters level. If you knew the first thing about it you wouldn’t be writing such drivel. FYI ‘space-time’ was a serious hypothesis at the time, it was not invented by science fiction.
    2.The reason Stephen Hawking is so admired, is not just because of his amazing work, it is also because of his ability to follow concepts and the very highest level of mathematics without any kinesthetic aid. If you knew the first thing about mathematics you would realise this. To achieve the position of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, you need to be at the very least a genius, but to achieve it with such physical handicaps is nothing short of miraculous.

    • Anonymous / Apr 11 2014 7:09 pm

      What a moron, James Watson graduated from high school at 15 and had a BSc by the time he was 20, no one with an iq of 115 can do that you fool. I have an iq of 131 and I struggled with calculus in the first year of my degree. It’s quite obvious that the author of this tripe is a deluded half-wit.

  76. asdf / Apr 6 2014 2:05 pm

    Why are my comments not showing up?

  77. Anonymous / Apr 2 2014 7:38 am

    Sure, many of these might be true, but who’s going to take you seriously with all those grammatical mistakes? Also, the reason people like Steven Hawking and Michio Kaku are geniuses is BECAUSE they’re media figures. Being able to express your ideas articulately is just as important as having them.

  78. JS / Mar 22 2014 1:38 pm

    Eliminating the Edison, Einstein, and Franklin types would leave us with a severely limited world for genius to inhabit. Genius limited to the 3-dimensions of IQ overlooks the nuanced pieces of “true” genius. Just as we know there are multiple dimensions that weave together our universe, so is genius comprised of the easy and “not so easy to quantify” layers. Pointing to ingenuity, as if it’s separate, misses what history sees more clearly than the limitations of the people of any given age – it is the level-set across all the dimensions of intelligence that must coalesce to create great genius.

    If we were to wager on an individual with a 200 IQ only, as compared to someone with a 120 equivalent across all areas? Well, I’ll bet on the latter, if we’re guessing on the one history will remember! Thankfully, we do not inhabit the black-and-white world to which the standardized IQ test would limit us.

  79. Anonymous / Mar 16 2014 5:20 pm

    I don’t know who wrote this, but you are a legitimate F*&%^Tard!!!!

    • Yellow Childress / Mar 19 2014 10:21 pm

      If you think this is evidence of the author’s idiocy you should check out his articles on how NAZIS were essentially leftists

      • Ray / Apr 1 2014 2:31 pm

        He’s right. The only real difference between Nazis and Communists is that the Nazis were more honest about what monsters they really were.

      • Gabe / Apr 2 2014 7:45 am

        Ahem. Nazis were not ‘leftists’, nor were they on the right. Our democratic spectrum doesn’t incorporate fascism. It’s apples and oranges. And Communism is the best form of government, the only reason it doesn’t work is because people (like you and me) aren’t perfect. Not only am I confident you have no idea what Marxism actually is, I don’t think you even want to.

      • grhrrhrhr / Apr 18 2014 6:33 pm

        Ray.

        He isn’t right. The ONLY thing that is similar between communists and NAZIs are their methods of attaining power. Their goals,who they decided to kill and be brutal were, for the most part, different.

  80. Errol King / Mar 11 2014 9:24 pm

    My top 10 for most *OVERRATED* SO CALLED “geniuses*

    Rick Rossner
    Chris Langan
    Evangelos Katsioulis
    Marilyn Vos Savant
    Mislav Predavec
    Kenneth Ferrell
    William Sidis
    Goethe
    shakespear
    Bill Gates

    • Ray / Apr 1 2014 2:26 pm

      Shakespeare was the greatest creative artist ever.

      • Errol King / Apr 18 2014 6:36 pm

        Not sure about that(Picaso, Beethoven, Mozart,,,, Just to name a few that could be described as at least as creative). Even if you assume that I think he is till overrated

  81. Errol King / Mar 11 2014 9:09 pm

    The only one that MIGHT deserve to be on that list in Einstein

    I don’t who I would put on a list of the top 10 but some I might consider might come from the
    following list

    George Orwell

    Philosophers/Mathematicians
    Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
    Immanuel Kant
    Friedrich Nietzsche
    Bertrand Russel
    Ludwig wittgenstein
    Saul Aaron Kripke

    Mathematicians/Physicists
    Isaac Newton
    Leonhard Euler
    Carl Friedrich Gauss
    Srinivasa Ramanujan
    William Rowan Hamilton
    John Von Newman
    Kurt Godel
    Paul Joseph Cohen
    Charles Fefferman
    Grigori Perelman
    Terence Tao
    Nikos Lygeros
    Lenhard Ng
    Ruth Lawrence
    Akshay Venkatesh
    James Clerk Maxwell
    Marie Curie
    Einstein
    Murray Gerstenhaber
    Edward Witten
    John Bardeen
    Richard Garwin
    Murray Gell-Mann
    Frank Wilczek
    Chris Hirata

    Mathematicians/computer scientists/programmers
    Reid Barton
    Erik Demaine
    Shafi Goldwasser

    Mathematicians/economists
    Gabriel Carroll.

    Computer Scientists/Cognitive Scientists
    Marvin Minsky
    John McCarthy
    Herbert Simon(also a nobel prize in economics too)
    Angela J. Yu

    Mathematicians/chess players
    Noam Elkies
    Aaron Pixton
    John Nunn
    Jon Speelman

    Chess Player/Philosopher
    Jesse Kraai
    Stuart Rachels(Marshall Scholar too)

    Chess Players
    Garry Kasparov
    Sergey Karjakin
    Magnus Carlsen

    Go Players
    Lee Chang-ho
    Cho Hunhyun

    General Stragety Game expert
    Mathew Cordell
    Demis Hassabis(also expert in cognitive science and AI)

    Puzzlers.
    Denis Auroux(Also a mathematician at UC Berkeley)
    Kiran Kedlaya(Also a mathematician at UC San Diego)’
    Thomas Snyder
    Ulrich Voigt
    Wei-Hwa Huang
    Palmer Mebane

    Others
    Kim Ung-yong
    Sho Yano
    Stephen A. Baccus
    Evan O’Dorney
    Vinodhini Vasudevan

    Others
    Kim Ung-yong
    Sho Yano

    • Errol King / Mar 11 2014 9:12 pm

      Oops I just realized I made a mistake
      I said “The only one that MIGHT deserve to be on that list in Einstein”

      actually that should have been
      “The only one that MIGHT NOT deserve to be on that list in Einstein”

      made a mistake too when I said
      “I don’t who I would put on a list of the top 10 but some I might consider might come from the
      following list”

      That would be top 10 list for smartest most impressive intellects

      OH and including Sidis is right on the money. There is so much misinformation about that guy.

  82. Anonymous / Mar 11 2014 4:37 pm

    Are you fucking stupid, Hawking is one the the smartest people to have ever lived. Every thing he says is believed by both scientist and average people.

  83. Anonymous / Mar 9 2014 4:50 pm

    WHEN WILL THE TECHNOLOGICAL SINGULARITY OCCUR!!!!!???!!???

  84. Ray Hager / Mar 9 2014 1:58 pm

    This is a nice page,and I do agree with some of what was presented, but you are leaving out the fact of what was was the AVERAGE intelligence of everyone else at the time. In all of the examples of these influential men…you have to remember over 95% of regular people couldn’t even read or complete an arithmetic problem. Success is not the MAIN gauge here to determine intelligence. Secondly, almost all new inventions are inspired from another invention or idea that preceded it.Your example on Watson was thought provoking but inaccurate. To say that him and his team contributed something that was already obvious to the scientific community was very ignorant, if it was that obvious, then certainly it would have been discovered centuries before.I completely agree with you on Edison.Edison was a business man first, inventor 2nd. Edison did everything in his power to keep his competition down…even when other inventors ideas were better than his, Benjamin Franklin was a genius…in diplomacy and philosophy. There are more was to gauge genius than my saying “what did he invent?” you could say he was a MAJOR contributor to the old american ideal of Isolationism and separatism that made are country great.His philosophy lead to the Monroe Doctrine which led to nearly 90 years of peace in international politics in the USA. Pythagoras was a SUPER GENIUS. Why? because you have to remember there was no internet no INFORMATION AGE. He lived in a time where everything was disconnected and one had to travel the world to become well educated and well rounded. Like I said before if you compare him to the average man OF HIS TIME it is easy to see he was brilliant. Finally you must ask yourself…” If these individuals had gotten the chance to have been born in our time with access to the internet and ALL types of knowledge at the push of a button…how far ahead would they be then? I am willing to bet they would have been even greater. Leonardo Da Vinci…I will not drone on about his accomplishments, I know you portrayed him as a simple artist who “drawings” represented nothing more than pure imagination. You are wrong again, he was a military engineer for the Medici family (the most powerful and influential family in Italy at the time.), these men that he worked for certainly did not PAY him for his company. Many of his designs did work…in fact he was the worlds FIRST sniper…among being the first of many things…he designed the first rifle that could accurately kill a man from more than 1,000 yards away.
    Everyone else I did NOT mention I agree with you. Those individuals are OVERRATED.I suggest you update this page and list. Conduct more Research on these individuals for REAL and come to your own conclusion based upon the evidence provided to you.
    My name is Raymond Hager,,Electrical engineer, Social Philosopher, Artist, Chess Champion( FIDE rated 2308),also inventor of the Parallel Constant Current Regulator.My I.Q. is 192 I am also a current member of Mensa.I believe what would be more interesting to read about would be a top ten list of the MOST UNDERRATED GENIUSES throughout history (Nikola Tesla being at the TOP in my opinion…he was the reason I became an engineer.). It would be informative and you will most likely not offend as many people, because you are trying to reveal “hidden” genius instead of knocking down some of the most influential thinkers of all time. There will always be an underling sense of optimism instead of this pessimism and people will be more forthcoming with valuable information instead of everyone writing a LONG message LIKE THIS ONE, defending there favorite intellectuals. Good day to you sir.

    • Yellow Childress / Mar 12 2014 9:28 pm

      “.My I.Q. is 192″
      unless that is STD 24 that means you’re better than one in million but there are no reliable IQ tests that come even close to going that high

    • Patrick Hurd / Mar 13 2014 8:32 pm

      I would probably agree with your statements and be a little more impressed with your own personal high IQ opinion, if your grammar was somewhat better; example: “To say that him (he) and his team contributed something” ….little mistakes reduce crediblity (your own personal media letting you down perhaps)…just a thought and not wanting to be personal!

      • Anonymous / Mar 23 2014 6:06 pm

        And, I would think that someone with an IQ of 192 would be familiar with the concept of paragraphs.

      • Tracy Mitchell / Jul 24 2014 10:55 am

        most people with higher IQs would not worry about proper diction, spelling errors/typos, gramatical error, forming complete sentences or paragraph structure….just as most texting via cell phones, tablets and etceteras. Point being made is that you get the point, and if you are not intelligent enough to decifer the different and need it all spelled out for you and written in crayon….then doubt away.

  85. Anonymous / Mar 8 2014 10:50 pm

    top 10 most amazing geniuses
    Here is my top 10 list of the most overrated geniuses. The rankings are based upon how overrated the “geniuses” starting from the lesser overrated geniuses ending with the most overrated genius.

    #10 – Bill Gates

    I don’t know why anyone would consider Bill Gates to be a genius, it’s a mystery to me.

    I’m not sure if Bill Gates belongs on this list since I don’t consider him to be a genius of any kind. Since some atheists keep saying that “Bill Gates invented the computer” or something foolish like that I decided to put him on this list.

    Bill Gates never invented the computer, the keyboard, the mouse, the GUI desktop concept, or anything like that. Yet for some reason many people really believe that he did.

    The actual pioneers of the computer were people like Charles Babbage, Alan Turing, and John von Neumann.

    The first computer to use the desktop mouse GUI was the Xerox Alto.

    #9 – James D. Watson

    James D. Watson and Francis Crick are universally hailed by biologists as great geniuses for being the DNA co-discoverers.

    So why is he overrated? Firstly, the data Watson and Crick used was collected by Rosalind Franklin who is basically ignored. Secondly, proposing a double helix structure for DNA given x-ray data requires little ingenuity or intelligence. I guess this explains why Watson’s IQ is only 124 (Crick’s IQ was supposedly only 115). Thirdly, according to Watson himself Crick was more clever than him.

    There are contributions that require little intellect but lots of ingenuity, there are contributions that require lots of intellect but little ingenuity, and there are contributions that require both intellect and ingenuity. This contribution however, doesn’t require neither ingenuity nor intellect, just simple observations.

    If Watson and Crick didn’t discover the double-helix structure of DNA then virtually any other biologist(s) would have given the data. It’s a contribution based off simple observations that would’ve happened by virtually any biologist, not a special kind of contribution.

    #8 – Michio Kaku

    People who watch TV probably think Michio Kaku is one of the greatest living physicists, but physicists don’t. There’s probably not even one physicist who would rank Michio Kaku within the top 50 or even the top 100 best living physicists.

    Michio Kaku has made some contributions, but he still isn’t even close to being one of the best physicists in modern times.

    Michio Kaku is more of a media figure who writes on popular science and appears on radio and TV shows a lot.

    Other physicists who are regarded as the best living physicist like Edward Witten are virtually ignored in the media.

    #7 – Stephen Hawking

    Stephen Hawking is overrated in the same manner that Michio Kaku is. People who watch TV probably think he’s one of the best living physicists even though he isn’t.

    Just like Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking is a media figure. Other physicists like Steven Weinberg and Ed Witten are completely ignored in the media.

    Just as with Michio Kaku there’s probably no working physicist who considers him to be the best physicist or even close even though the media portrays him to be the best physicist.

    #6 – William James Sidis

    When people talk about prodigies William J. Sidis is almost always mentioned. He was an extraordinarily fast learner and had an estimated IQ of 250-300.

    There are many web sites dedicated to Sidis and his supposed “genius”. They will always mention how fast Sidis learned this, what he calculated, etc….but what about Sidis’s contributions?

    William Sidis doesn’t have any significant contributions. That’s why he’s overrated. What’s so special about being a super-fast learner and contributing nothing significant? There is nothing special about it.

    So what’s Sidis’s most significant contribution? A perpetual calendar?

    #5 – Benjamin Franklin

    When people who have no knowledge of science think about who made electrical technology possible they probably think of Benjamin Franklin.

    The only problem is that Benjamin Franklin contributed very little to science and has very little to do with the advent of electrical technology.

    The “key” story about Benjamin Franklin may also be a myth. He like other overrated geniuses on this list is just another media figure.

    The actual scientists that were primarily responsible for making electrical technology possible were Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell who are both completely ignored in the media.

    For Benjamin Franklin being so falsely associated with electrical technology he ranks as the 5th most overrated genius.

    #4 – Thomas Edison

    When people think of inventors Thomas Edison almost always come to mind. They probably think of a light bulb or a phonograph. He is a very celebrated figure in the media.

    So why is Edison overrated? Edison has over 1000 patents (the 3rd most prolific inventor) but Edison bought many patents and was not the originator of many of the ideas. Edison had setup many different labs and had many others working on inventions. So the vast majority of Edison’s inventions do not independently come from Edison.

    Edison was not even the first one to invent the incandescent light bulb. Edison and his team invented an improved version of the incandescent light bulb, many had existed before. Fluorescent light bulbs though are much more efficient and an overall better invention than incandescent light bulbs.

    Other genius engineers like Nikola Tesla are almost ignored in the media.

    Edison was not the genius inventor as portrayed by the media but instead a businessman.

    Since Edison did not work independently and was mostly a businessman he ranks as the 4th most overrated genius.

    #3 – Albert Einstein

    So who’s the person who’s so associated with the word genius that the image or thought of him comes in mind when the word “genius” is mentioned? It’s got to be Einstein.

    Einstein is overrated for many reasons. Many people seem to believe that Einstein was a great mathematician. They probably saw on TV “E=mc2” and thought he must have been a great mathematician but in reality Einstein was not a mathematician at all. Mathematicians make mathematical contributions, Einstein applied already existing mathematics (in this case Riemannian geometry).

    Another reason that Einstein is overrated is because many people think his ideas were original, but they were not. Einstein seems to have gotten a lot of his ideas directly from Michael Faraday, who Einstein was a fan of. Faraday who is ignored in the media tried to unify gravity with other forces long before Einstein. Faraday had long emphasized his belief that everything was unified as one (magnetism, light, gravity, etc…) primarily because of his religion. The main difference between Einstein’s ideas and Faraday’s is that Einstein added in the space-time dimension, but this idea is not original either since it had already appeared in science fiction novels.

    Einstein is also overrated for being known by many as the smartest person ever. Some people have “estimated” his IQ to be over 200 (which is most likely impossible). People like Newton, Archimedes, Gauss, and others were likely much smarter than Einstein but they are not portrayed as such in the media.

    Since the mathematics for General Relativity came from Riemann, a lot of Einstein’s ideas are inspired from Faraday, and for Einstein being so synonymous with the word “genius” he ranks as the 3rd most overrated genius.

    #2 – Pythagoras of Samos

    When non-mathematicians think of the best mathematicians Pythagoras likely comes to mind. Most non-mathematicians probably think Pythagoras was the #1 mathematician or close to #1, but mathematicians don’t.

    In reality Pythagoras is not the best mathematician or even close. People like Newton, Euler, Gauss, Riemann, and many other mathematicians who are completely ignored in the media for their mathematical brilliance were much better much mathematicians than Pythagoras by far.

    Euler and Gauss (the mathematicians that are arguably the two best of all time) are virtually ignored in the media. I wonder what things would be like if Euler and Gauss were mentioned in the media as much as Pythagoras is.

    The Pythagorean theorem and a proof of the Pythagorean theorem are not difficult things to discover. There exists literally hundreds of different proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. Most of what Pythagoras and his students did are not difficult to discover or re-discover. Just compare re-discovering the Pythagorean theorem to rediscovering Euler’s identity and it’s easy to see which requires more ingenuity.

    Even though it’s true that Pythagoras and his students made some contributions Pythagoras is still far from ranking within the top 10 or top 20 best mathematicians, which is why he is one of the most super-overrated figures.

    Since the vast majority of Pythagoras’s contributions are easy to re-discover and since Pythagoras is synonymous with the word “mathematician” despite being far from the best mathematician he ranks as the 2nd most overrated genius.

    #1 – Leonardo da Vinci

    So who’s the most super-overrated genius of all time? It’s Leonardo da Vinci.

    Da Vinci is universally hailed as one of the greatest geniuses of all time. He is celebrated for his art, inventions, science, and being multi-talented.

    Leonardo da Vinci is the most overrated genius of all time mainly because of the many outlandish claims made about how much of a genius he was.

    Many different sources have “estimated” Da Vinci’s IQ to be over 200. This however is quite impossible. It’s literally impossible that Da Vinci had an IQ of 200+. Whenever asked for legitimate reasons as to how Da Vinci could of had an IQ of 200+ people will usually respond with an appeal to authority saying something like “this expert said so” or “this person said so”.

    Da Vinci himself said “Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory”.

    In order to correctly estimate IQ you have to estimate how well someone would be able to answer the most difficult IQ-style questions.

    I know that Da Vinci’s IQ would not be any higher than 160 based on some simple observations:
    – At least half of Da Vinci’s inventions failed when tested, this does not show high IQ at all
    – Da Vinci tried to learn mathematics but didn’t really get very far
    – Da Vinci was not a super-fast learner (the main sign of high IQ)
    – Da Vinci’s works do not require a high IQ

    Nothing Da Vinci did demonstrates that he had an IQ of 200 or higher or even close to that. Da Vinci is so overrated that people think his IQ was higher than Newton’s. But how could that be possible? Newton did things like solving the brachistochrone problem in a few hours, but what did Leonardo da Vinci do to demonstrate his intelligence? I would be surprised if Da Vinci had an IQ higher than 140.

    Da Vinci’s inventions have also been grossly exaggerated. Da Vinci drew drawings and different people have personally interpreted some of the same drawings to mean different things. This has been the case with Da Vinci’s supposed calculator. Objectors once again claim this device wouldn’t actually work and isn’t actually a drawing of a calculator, but people personally interpret it to be so.

    This is also the case with Da Vinci’s supposed helicopter. It’s not really a helicopter, it’s just an aerial screw. Helicopters are closer to Chinese bamboo toys than they are to Da Vinci’s sketches. The media and others simply overrated Da Vinci so much they decided to call it a helicopter (some how).

    Da Vinci never actually built or tested most of his inventions and at least half of them failed when tested. The vast majority of the models of Da Vinci’s designs that really do work are modified versions of Da Vinci’s designs or strange interpretations of what Da Vinci’s designs mean. In order to get most of Da Vinci’s designs to work modifications are necessary.

    The more people test out Da Vinci’s designs the more people find that his designs don’t work. What’s genius about coming up with failed designs? Basically anyone who has artistic talent, an IQ of 130 or higher, and spends all their time focusing on inventing new machines would be able to come up with lots of inventions (and having half of them fail).

    Da Vinci being far ahead of his time is also an exaggerated claim. Da Vinci was born in the year 1452 AD, not the year 287 BC like Archimedes. Basically everything Da Vinci had done had been independently re-discovered without much effort by others within 200 years or less or had been done prior to Da Vinci. Since at least half of Da Vinci’s designs didn’t work I’m not sure how much it would have mattered if Da Vinci’s writings had been discovered much earlier. During Da Vinci’s time being ahead of your time didn’t take much.

    Other much better engineers like Heron, Archimedes, Al-Jazari, and Tesla are ignored in the media.

    Al-Jazari for instance pre-dates Da Vinci by more than 200 years, he invented one of the first programmable analog computers, camshaft, segmented gears, and more. His book is much more detailed than Leonardo da Vinci’s drawings, all of his designs work, and even though he pre-dates Da Vinci he is completely ignored in the media.

    Or what about the super-genius engineer and mathematician Archimedes, who pre-dates Da Vinci by more than 1600 years. He is also ignored in the media.

    Da Vinci is perhaps one of the greatest geniuses of all time. For Da Vinci being so super-overrated that people think his IQ was 200+, for at least half of Da Vinci’s designs not working, for his inventions being grossly overrated, and for the media and many others super-overrating him he ranks as the #1 very most overrated person of all time.

    There doesn’t even exist one other genius in all of human history as overrated as Da Vinci.

    From my list we can see that the media is full of lies and exaggerations. Those are all my thoughts on who’s overrated. I wonder how controversial my claims may become…
    Except for michio kaku and Stephen hawking these are the greatest geniuses of our time.

  86. Belstaff Deutschland / Mar 8 2014 10:38 pm

    Hello there, I discovered your website by the use of Google at the same time as searching
    for a comparable subject, your site got here up, it
    looks great. I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.

    Hi there, just become alert to your blog through Google,
    and found that it is really informative. I am going to watch out for brussels.
    I’ll be grateful in case you proceed this in future.
    Many people might be benefited from your writing.
    Cheers!

  87. How to Win the Lottery Powerball / Mar 8 2014 12:45 pm

    I comment whenever I like a article on a site or if I have something to valuable to contribute to the conversation.
    It is a result of the fire displayed in the article I browsed.
    And on this post The Top 10 Most Overrated Geniuses | itsnobody.
    I was actually moved enough to leave a thought :-) I
    do have a couple of questions for you if you don’t mind.

    Could it be only me or do a few of the responses appear as
    if they are coming from brain dead people? :-P And, if you are posting on other online sites,
    I’d like to keep up with you. Would you list every one of your public sites like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin
    profile?

  88. Anonymous / Mar 7 2014 9:41 pm

    IS THIS ARTICLE ABOUT THE TOP 10 MOST OVERRATED GENIUSES A VERY SUPER RETARDED BLOG?????!!!!!!

  89. Anonymous / Mar 7 2014 7:53 pm

    Bland repettative writing

  90. Anonymous / Mar 5 2014 10:20 pm

    m

  91. Anonymous / Mar 5 2014 10:18 pm

    da Vinci – is not Leonardo’s surname,and should not be used as so,it means literally- from Vinci,the town in Italy where Leonardo was born , if you where in Italy and you say to someone da Vinci,you would be considered to be saying ,are you from Vinci?
    you do not say anything about his anatomical drawings ,which where the only precise diagrams used till very recent times to teach medical students, therefor you are incompetent sir,and should keep your stupidity to yourself. Paolo Serra

  92. Emma / Mar 5 2014 8:44 pm

    I do not see the point in even writing this list. To devalue the contributions others have made is ridiculous.

  93. top muscle build supplements / Mar 5 2014 1:52 am

    I recommend foods that arehigh in nutritional
    value to promote building muscle and notfat gain. The human body needs water to stay cool, to discharge
    waste material from the body, to provide the base for various
    chemical reactions in the body for metabolism.
    There are many different types of body building exerices; some of the basics include leg extensions, flyes, dips, bench presses, curls, dead lifts, pull ups,
    incline crunches, lateral pull downs, lunges, squats, side laterals, work with dumbells and
    barbells and all of the “regular stuff” like running, stair climbing, biking and swimming.

  94. Investor in 10017 / Mar 3 2014 5:12 pm

    hi!,I like your writing so so much! percentage we communicate extra about your article on AOL?
    I need a specialist on this area to resolve my problem.
    May be that is you! Taking a look forward to see you.

  95. Anonymous / Mar 3 2014 2:09 pm

    This could not be a more ridiculous waste of an internet page.

  96. Anonymous / Mar 2 2014 6:21 pm

    is the writer itsnobody a retard?

  97. Anonymous / Mar 2 2014 6:17 pm

    is the writer “itsnobody” a former phd candidate that developed a severe mental illnes?

  98. Anonymous / Feb 28 2014 8:30 pm

    How can we assume merit of someone who writes so blandly and with so many errors? Also, I don’t understand how the writer of this article or the people commenting on it believe they have any stance on this matter. These people are talking about contributions? Every one of the people on this list contributed to the world of science exponentially more than any of us! I don’t think the writer of this article had the authority to judge the percepted geniuses of history, because, even if they are over rated, they have much more merit and accomplishment than the writer does!

  99. Brand and marketing / Feb 28 2014 5:57 pm

    Nice post. I learn something new and challenging on sites I stumbleupon every
    day. It will always be useful to read through content from other writers and practice something from their sites.

  100. Anonymous / Feb 27 2014 8:21 pm

    I hope the writer cuts his hands off

  101. The Cryptowizard / Feb 26 2014 7:10 pm

    The quality of this article suggests that the author isn’t very educated. All science is built on previous science. All facts are derived from other “facts”. Disqualifying genius because they weren’t the first to discover something, improved what someone else conceived, or contributed little is ignorant.

    All of these men have each individually contributed more to science than a majority of mankind throughout history. If nothing else, managing to make yourself viewed as a genius by the world when in fact you may not be by definition is in itself genius. Perception is reality.

  102. Anonymous / Feb 26 2014 4:54 am

    i saw some of the comments and observed that many readers of your post underlined the issue of linking iq with the notion of genius, i also read some def of genius posted by you. I advice you to consider the etymology of the word which is the primary and the genuine signification of ‘genius’

  103. Anonymous / Feb 26 2014 4:15 am

    It is true that your list contain many overrated pers. but your point of view is narrow and your argument is weak

  104. davekeller / Feb 25 2014 8:04 am

    Very amusing list. I agree about Leonardo Da Vinci. But Albert Einstein was a true genius. Even if he did not invent Reimann geometry, it was a work of genius to apply it to the space-time continuum in a way which was true and physically verifiable. You seem to acknowledge the genius of Newton, who “merely” applied differential and integral calculus to the physical world in the same way that Einstein did, but at a much lower level of mathematical sophistication. You are going to say that Newton invented calculus (concurrent with Leibnitz) but, really, if you look at Einstein’s work in detail, wasn’t there a lot of invention or at least mathematical creativity there too at a very high level. Einstein developed the theory of relativity and the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, and seminal contributions to quantum theory, every one of which would have won him a Nobel prize in a non-racist Europe. Come on, take Einstein off your list, it really costs you a lot of credibility.

  105. kd / Feb 23 2014 10:23 pm

    Why isnt steve jobs here. Also by saying someone like einstein simply puts together known ideas or other peoples “work” is incredibly stupid. You basically said that every genius who ever lived is overatted just because every day they use someone elses axioms to prove other things. By this logic, euclid is the greatest human to have every lived, as his first 4 axioms are the most fundemental in all of mathematics(not his 5th, in the cases of bernard rieman). Also saying that he stole space time from “science fiction novels” is sooooooooo freakin stupid, holy shit your dumb. Thats like saying if someone invents time travel, he would have stole the idea because it was in back to the future first. Thinking of something his the easy part, finding out how to do it , harder, and actually doing it is the hardest.

  106. Alex / Feb 22 2014 10:21 pm

    Top 10 overrated “geniuses.”

    1. Einstein
    2. Einstein
    3. Einstein
    4. Einstein
    5. Einstein
    6. Einstein
    7. Einstein
    8. Einstein
    9. Einstein
    10. Einstein

    Who did he NOT steal from? You say Faraday, you could have said “Poincare” or many others. He is promoted by a certain militant (certainly in self-promotion but at times literally terroristic) group that happens to control much of the media….and if you say they control the media they will immeditely destroy you to….disprove (?) that claim… Ask Rick Sanchez.

    • MitchyC / Feb 24 2014 3:22 pm

      R U anti-Semitic or just a regular whack job?

  107. Zak Perea / Feb 22 2014 9:25 pm

    the person itsnobody who wrote this article of overrated geniuses is a complete retard except for michio kaku in the sense that he claimed he invented radio.

  108. best butt workouts / Feb 22 2014 10:53 am

    This is really interesting, You are a very skilled blogger.
    I’ve joined your feed and look forward to seeking
    more of your magnificent post. Also, I have shared
    your website in my social networks!

  109. Alberto / Feb 21 2014 11:00 am

    You’re a big retarded. Leonardo overrated? Da Vinci is the number one and always will be. Learn some history.

  110. Me / Feb 21 2014 10:51 am

    Interesting ideas. I didn’t know that IQ was so important for determining genius. The only person I’d keep on that list is maybe Bill Gates, but then again, you don’t become one of the richest people in the world by being stupid. Also Einstein didn’t really accomplish much besides publishing papers explaining photons, atoms, and relativity all in the same year and all before he even had a job as a physicist. That’d be like a bus driver being able to explain black holes. More important than all of that, Einstein helped make science more public. He went on long trips across many countries and continents to talk to crowds of people. This is exactly what makes people like Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku so important–they bring science to the public and get people interested in it.

    • MitchyC / Feb 24 2014 3:17 pm

      Yeah, just because Einstein was a rock star of his time in no wise diminishes his miracle year of 1905. NO way he belongs here. Same with Hawking. He has been a popularizer, but again, he’s done some pretty genius level stuff. And Da Vinci as #1? R U kidding me?

  111. Zak Perea / Feb 20 2014 3:03 pm

    the person who wrote this article is a complete retard.

  112. Anonymous / Feb 20 2014 7:00 am

    Actually, you are wrong, the definition of “genius” is IQ = 140. No (living) person has an IQ of 0, even monkies have IQ of 40 (on average, by playing a random choice game).
    Da Vinci is not the only historical person to have IQ of 200+, there are even historical people with estimated IQs of 300+. Don’t be jealous. There are also living people with IQ approaching 200, who are unknown to the world because people don’t like people who are smarter than them.

    • MitchyC / Feb 24 2014 3:20 pm

      You are so right about people. They don’t like people smarter than them.

  113. Anonymous / Feb 17 2014 6:24 pm

    I agree with some of your “overrated geniuses”, but the assertion that Albert Einstein is overrated is completely absurd.

    First, you argue that people think Einstein is a great mathematician. You have to be living in a hole if you think Einstein made contributions to mathematics. He was a physicist who actually opposed using math at all to formulate his theories. He preferred pictures to equations, a sign of genius.

    Second, you claim that Einstein got a lot of ideas from Faraday. But to assert that a genius has to discover or achieve something completely by themselves is preposterous. Only by standing on the backs of the greats before us can we continue advancing.

    Third, you say that apparently the idea of space time unification had already appeared in some books (I doubt their existence and would be pleased if anyone could show me one). But these books were science fiction books, written merely to entertain. They probably contained absolutely no concrete physics. Einstein was the first to unify space and time to create an invariant property of nature that we could measure and predict.

  114. Anonymous / Feb 17 2014 4:40 pm

    … If you think Isaac Newton is ignored in the media… he isn’t and you’re retarded

  115. Eric / Feb 15 2014 5:44 pm

    It is worth noting Leonardo is thought of as a genius by many due to his art works, and his interest in science was subordinated to his concerns with visual representation. Not many people in history can match him as a painter. It’s like questioning Witten’s genius because he probably can’t draw…

  116. daughter quotes / Feb 14 2014 5:20 am

    Amazing! Its in fact amazing post, I have got much clear idea concerning from this piece
    of writing.

  117. xyz / Feb 12 2014 1:44 pm

    Somewhat agree with author.

    Einstein is still better than most physicists out there, he had clarity in his thinking. Definitely Euler,Lagrange,Guass,Reimann,Newton are way above him. I would even place Dirac slightly above Einstein.

  118. Colton Horn / Feb 9 2014 9:11 pm

    This article may be the dumbest thing I have ever come across. To claim that people like Einstein, DaVinci, Hawking, and Gates are not genius is beyond me. Shame on the writer of this article.

    • Anonymous / Feb 11 2014 8:29 pm

      he never discounted the inteliguens

    • Anonymous / Feb 20 2014 2:03 am

      It’s true that Gates is a hack. Not as much as Steve Jobs for ripping of Steve Wozniak, but still a hack. DaVinci was an artist. Flying machine sculpting and painting. Not much more than that. I love his art, though. That’s where DaVinci’s a genius. His art.

  119. Anonymous / Feb 9 2014 7:27 pm

    Fuck You Bitch. That’s all that’s worth saying about this post.

  120. mudgenhead / Feb 2 2014 6:12 pm

    muahahahaha…. what a joke this list is. What is even more overrated than the people on your list, is the role of IQ in being a genius – what you quite obviously don’t understand…

  121. Al Tesla Azog / Feb 1 2014 8:10 pm

    This list is so foolish, it doesn’t really need me to even type this sentence. There are better ways to have come across better on this list, but listing Leonardo Da Vinci, as number one is not one of them. You should have simply gone with Einstein, who’s IQ is exceeded by many other geniuses, and General Relativity theory has a few holes in it, that now need explaining. All lists of these types that have a top ten are stupid though. Maybe you could argue for a top 5 geniuses that shouldn’t be considered so. It’s all an example of immaturity and insecurity of the list creator though, so who really cares.

  122. free high speed internet proxy / Jan 30 2014 7:58 am

    what is the fastest ram available for desktop computers

  123. Alfie / Jan 26 2014 12:36 pm

    Your list is ridiculous
    Einstein’s theory of e=mc2 was an original idea because although the idea that the speed of light being the fastest speed was in maxwells/faradays equation it did not say anything about energy-mass equivalents. Also Stephen Hawking is not overrated, he was able to help uncover mysteries about black holes.

    Your list needs to be improved.

    • Steve Kikuchi / Jan 27 2014 5:41 pm

      The e=mc2 equation is not from Einstein. It is from Olindo de Pretto. The rest of Einstein’s work on general relativity was basically plagiarized from the work of other scientists. Einstein is not only overrated, he is a complete fraud when it comes to relativity.

  124. Ga les / Jan 26 2014 12:01 am

    agree at all … I’m a mathematician and everything said is true … more q “geniuses” they are promoted. Riemann discovered the theory of relativity before. Ed Witten is a genius in physics, which unify string theory … THOSE ARE NOT SCIENCE BUT MAY BE AGAINST THE REALITY IS AS SHOWN HERE. THEREFORE, IF YOU KNOW, INVESTIGATE BEFORE YOU SPEAK … IGNORANT OF SCIENCE

  125. Shreedhar Shekhar / Jan 22 2014 4:55 am

    this is a post from madman who neither know history nor physics.Why would Albert Einstein contribute to math while he is a physicist.He did not borrowed ideas from anyone,I think you have never ever studied relativity but you are giving opinion on it and by your style of writing I could easily say you don’t even know what ‘E=mc^2′ implies.

    • itsnobody / Jan 22 2014 8:51 pm

      You are an idiot.

      Einstein did indeed borrow ideas from Faraday, as Einstein himself cites Faraday as one of his major inspirations, but it was mostly Maxwell who copied from Faraday first unifying magnetism, electricity, and light as one. Faraday tried to unify gravity long before Einstein did, so most likely Einstein did indeed copy the idea of unifying all things from Faraday, attempting to unify everything as one since Einstein read lots of Faraday’s papers.

      The idea that time is the 4th dimension didn’t originate with Einstein, it was in the science fiction novel “The Time Machine” (by H. G. Wells, published in 1895).

      These two things make Einstein’s so-called originality not very original.

      If we’d have to say who’s ideas were really original, I guess it would be Faraday’s.

      “When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.” – Albert Einstein

      Einstein contributed very little to mathematics, even if we count the joke “Einstein summation”, which is just re-writing a summation, lol. I mentioned it because it’s part of Einstein being an overrated figure.

      James Clerk Maxwell isn’t considered to be an important figure in mathematics even though “curl” and “div” have more important useful applications than the Einstein summation does.

      The one who invented Riemannian geometry was the mathematician Riemann not Einstein (which is used for GR).
      The ones who invented Calculus were Newton and Leibniz.

      “E=mc^2″ is just mass-energy equivalence, ‘E’ means energy, ‘m’ means mass, ‘c’ is the speed of light in a vacuum.

      I’m sure you didn’t know that “E=mc^2″ wasn’t used for making the atomic bomb, it’s just popular myth circulated in the media.

      While I consider Einstein to be a genius, he’s definitely an exaggerated/overrated one.

      In my opinion Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell are more important figures in history than Einstein was.

      You sound like an idiot who has no understanding of basic history or physics, you probably just read junk in magazines and web sites, you probably don’t know that there were lots of physicists and mathematicians attempting to unify gravity during and prior to Einstein’s time using Riemannian geometry (Hermann Weyl, Arthur Eddington, Theodor Kaluza, etc..), this makes Einstein’s so-called originality less original.

      I’m sure you never heard of Maxwell’s equations, or JC Maxwell since he isn’t mentioned in the media much (almost not at all), lol.

      Maxwell’s equations is much much much bigger than anything Einstein did, Maxwell’s equations had arguably the biggest effect on human history than any other single physics achievement.

      It’s debatable what effect General Relativity really has on us and human history…even if you count things like GPS since GR has few real-world applications.

      I’m not sure if GR is really true, I think it’s closer to the truth than Newtonian physics, but a lot of the material dealing with GR is abstract as opposed to concrete so I can’t really tell if GR is merely an accurate model or closer to the literal truth.

      I’m working on my own physics model which for practical real-world applications I’ll only need vector calculus. It invokes the existence of multiple timelines, shows energy to have different properties, shows matter itself to be wave-like, makes empirically testable predictions that can be tested and experienced as real, and has countless real-world applications. Since it has too many real-world applications that could threaten the economy and national defense I’ll probably have to keep it a secret.

      I think modern day science is headed in the wrong direction, people focus more on expanding models or correcting models or coming up with new models rather than looking what empirical observations & reality tells us, and attempting to know the actual truth.

      Since many many things about Einstein are exaggerated I can only label him as overrated.

      If you disagree with any of my statements feel free to refute anything, rather than just throwing baseless personal attacks.

      • Steve Kikuchi / Jan 27 2014 5:46 pm

        Einstein is overrated. The author of this article states that Da Vinci couldn’t be a genius because he wasn’t “good at math”. Again, one can be a genius and not be good at math. As in being a top class mathematician. In many cases it is the structure of a person’s intelligence that dictates math ability – among other abilities.

  126. Anonymous / Jan 21 2014 4:09 pm

    Absolute garbage of a post.

  127. Anonymous / Jan 16 2014 2:28 pm

    You say that Einstein made no major, original contributions to physics. Before his papers were published, physicists were attempting to measure the so-called “ether,” which was a constant frame of reference.

    • itsnobody / Jan 20 2014 5:36 pm

      Just a straw man argument, I argued that Einstein’s originality was exaggerated because his idea to unify things was copied from Faraday and partially Maxwell.

      But I consider Einstein still to be a great genius, just an overrated one.

  128. it_matters_not / Jan 15 2014 11:38 pm

    You seem quite bitter. While I appreciate the work that went into this, the drive to disprove abs discredit some amazing thinkers, shows little ingenuity on your part.

  129. Jim King / Jan 14 2014 10:39 am

    This list is embarrassing. Although I agree many deserve to be on it your understanding of the accomplishments of many of them is limited (especially Einstein), and your poor writing doesn’t help. Unless you want to sound retarded don’t talk about who is the “best” physicist.

    • Mark / Feb 17 2014 7:11 am

      Don’t remark him as best. He is far less BOLD than Max Plank and Heisenberg.

  130. Anonymous / Jan 14 2014 12:24 am

    Having a high IQ does not make you a genious. It is the creativity and making a accomplishment that changes a field forever. And how can people possibly claim to know Da Vinci’s IQ if intelligence scores didn’t exist? Also, failing a experiment, invention, or anything is how we learn… And he had much less to work with than we do now.

    • S. Holmes / Jan 18 2014 2:59 pm

      Actually by definition, having a high IQ is what makes you a ‘genius’. Whilst yes there may be other uses, this entire page is flawed. What is a genius. What they have done for society, or how they are portrayed is not the definition. It is someone who displays an exceptional intillectual ability.

      • itsnobody / Jan 20 2014 5:33 pm

        Wrong again.

        It depends on which definition of ‘genius’ you use…IQ is just a man-made test…so what if someone has a high IQ but accomplishes or contributes nothing?

        “gen·ius [jeen-yuhs] Show IPA
        noun, plural gen·ius·es for 2, 3, 8, gen·i·i [jee-nee-ahy] Show IPA , for 6, 7, 9, 10.
        1.
        an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius of Mozart. Synonyms: intelligence, ingenuity, wit; brains.
        2.
        a person having such capacity.
        3.
        a person having an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a psychological test, as an IQ above 140. Synonyms: mental giant, master, expert; whiz, brain, brainiac. Antonyms: idiot, imbecile, half-wit, dope, moron; fool, simpleton, dunce, dullard, dolt; numskull, blockhead, nitwit, ninny.
        4.
        natural ability or capacity; strong inclination: a special genius for leadership. Synonyms: gift, talent, aptitude, faculty, endowment, predilection; penchant, knack, bent, flair, wizardry.
        5.
        distinctive character or spirit, as of a nation, period, or language.” – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genius

        Using your reasoning you would consider a low IQ person who contributes lots to be a non-genius and a high IQ person who contributes nothing to be a great genius.

        But it’s only been in relatively recent times that IQ testing has really become popular. Since IQ is just a made up test this means it relies on the type of test and what questions that IQ inventors choose.

        Most popular IQ tests seem to have to do with recognizing patterns, which is just one type of intelligence.

        Making Nobel-prize winning contributions probably involves other things not measured by IQ tests.

        I don’t think any man-made test can accurately measure everything that our neurons do, do you?

  131. Hock Lim / Jan 12 2014 10:27 pm

    A cynic with an acrid tongue. show us what you have contributed to the world.

  132. Mau / Jan 9 2014 9:12 pm

    You got to be kidding with einstein, the implication of e=mc2 is huge for example that matter and energy can be exchangable ergo matter comes from energy. He reinvented the concept of dimension adding time, to form space-time dometion. He was the first person who ever thought that the universe can be altered by its content nor newton or galilleo. Read a bit more. Hawking too i mean obviously not at this level but for example he solve the singularity situation just that gibes him huge merit

  133. Humble Non-Genius / Jan 7 2014 6:05 am

    This article? I AGREED with most of the author’s choices…..however, I also cannot respect any writer whose obvious anger/bitterness/sarcasm for the subject matter negates any (otherwise) points of merit or correct analyses, nice try. One quick observation, tho, and what the guy was probably REALLY trying to get at?….is the waaaaay overuse and misuse of the word “genius” by people, especially on TV, for the past 20 years. True Genius turns the world on its figurative ear, when it DOES hit. It’s a rarer-than-rare occurrence in both persons having it, and circumstances containing it (discovery, invention, etc). I find myself literally wincing approximately 19 times out of 20 when hearing it used incorrectly on TV. Succinctly put? “Genius” on TV, when used incorrectly, may be defined as “An ability that, while both unique and successful, cannot on its own merit be considered necessarily of good quality nor significance as implied or stated outright.”

  134. indiecat379 / Jan 4 2014 7:50 am

    you’re nobody

  135. Anonymous / Jan 2 2014 2:08 pm

    The guy who wrote this article is clearly jelly ^_^

  136. Anonymous / Jan 2 2014 2:03 pm

    This article was bs from someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about

    • Anonymous / Feb 9 2014 8:16 pm

      It’s still one man’s opinion

  137. Tony / Jan 1 2014 9:54 pm

    Ridiculously stupid article. Even Googling shows basic mistakes in the naive logic used here, not to mention real books.

  138. Zen Galacticore / Dec 31 2013 3:25 am

    You write, “than Stephen Hawking is overrated in the same manner that Michio Kaku is”.. First of all, there’s no reason to end a sentence with ‘is’ unless it’s absolutely necessary. Proper grammar demands that the way to end such a sentence would be: “Hawking is overrated in the same way as is Michio Kaku.”.

    Don’t get me wrong, I mean no offense. I’m highly educated in the arts as well as the sciences, and even though I read Kaku’s “Hyperspace” years ago, I now think of him more as an annoying mosquito than a physicist.

    Many of these modern “science media” hopefuls seem to be envious of Carl Sagan. (You no doubt have much negative criticism of Doc Sagan.) At any rate, who really cares? You keep mentioning, “people who watch TV”. Do you never watch TV? I myself watch PBS, for the most part. After all, “TV” is a powerful medium. And from the research I’ve done, the info on PBS is, generally, more accurate than much of the info I get off of the internet!

    Anywho, you sound kind of like a failed grad student or unsuccessful doctoral candidate or something.

    • Steve Kikuchi / Jan 27 2014 5:48 pm

      Kaku is a hack. More and more he’s coming across as a paid shill for corporations wanting to expand the H1B program to keep salaries down among other things. He has done very little in terms of real work, anything groundbreaking.

  139. anon / Dec 29 2013 12:22 pm

    why dont you start your own bn$ company and earn 73bn out of nowhere , you are a harvard grad ? right ?

  140. Vann / Dec 28 2013 4:12 pm

    So in short this article is good but falls Short of the Huge Propaganda of the media
    but also of Scietist organization with their Nobel Prize.. Imagine that obama got the Nobel Prize of Peace.. to give you an Idea of how ridiculous have become the Mainstream media but also Popular Scientific Organizations.

    will have been also good to mention..J. Robert Oppenheimer the so called ” Father of the Atomic Bomb.” ,that never was ,,but the Italian Enrico Fermi ..who invented the first Nuclear reactor ,and who was hired by the US with other world scientist to create a bomb for them. Robert , was the Edison of the project.. (ie.. the dirty manager who later take the credit) for the works of others..

    Another worth mentioning is Ben Rich ,the so called “Father of Stealth” who designed the F-117.
    Reality is the stealth technology was invented by Russians 20 years earlier before Americans began to research how to evade radars.. and develop a stealth plane.. to make story short.. After the collapse of soviet union ,many Scientist were offered jobs in America and Petr Ufimtsev ,who invented wrote the theory of Stealth and published books. began to work in secret for the F-117 team project. and he was the Soul of the stealth project. Albeit he never knew his seminars and teachings of how radar evasion works were used to develop a weapon until they build it.

    Peter Ufimtsev deserved the Nobel prize of Physics since his discoveries ,have totally modernized the way technology today is developed to lower radar detection.

    Wright Brothers neither invented the plane they copied other planes that already were developed in Europe .. same with Edison works . the Real Greatest Scientist /inventors ever are the ones which their names have been agreed to be used worldwide by all nations internationally as unit of measure in books of Science. names like Newton,Faraday,Tesla ,Pascals..hertz ,Volta, watt , ohm.ampere
    . im sure many people ,even the ones who knows nothing about science have heard some of those names a lot when buying a new computer or home theater or need to buy electrical machines for repairing your house..

    a follow up report should name the most UNDERRATED Geniuses in the world ,which by “mysterious
    coincidences” their works and or discoveries have been enormous for the development of all science and technology in the world today. is not complete but a good starting list..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_whose_names_are_used_as_SI_units.

    http://www.cracked.com/article_16072_5-famous-inventors-who-stole-their-big-idea.html

    • Steve Kikuchi / Jan 27 2014 5:50 pm

      Even the Nobel Prize is becoming less and less of a standard to judge the genius of a particular individual, it’s becoming so politicized. More than a few judges have complained about the pressure from certain groups and lobbies to have their “man” given an award.

  141. Vann / Dec 28 2013 3:22 pm

    Very good article.. indeed Leonardo the most hyped inventor on the planet.. is ridiculous.. he was just a Good Concept Artist with a lot of creativity for designing military machines.. He was hired not for his art but for his creativity for designing tools that could be used for war.. So a genius NOT ,just a man with a a lot creativity . He was neither that good in Art ,there are millions artist better than him.. look at Michelangelo for example sculptor and painter. ,There are millions artist today better the Leonardo and not kidding. Just the media love to create Heroes ,when they have sympathy for his Political life.

    About Einstein.. He was Good in Physics but not the best one ,and he was not so good in mathematics which Einstein himself admitted..He did not invented Relativity , Henri Poincaré a french mathematician did it. Einstein learned a lot from Henri Published works and continue developed from there.. But what is scary about Einstein is that he never in his life gave credit ,to any of Henri’s relativity works when clearly he was the base of Einstein works in Relativity . So Einstein is over rated Yes… Since he copied much of the work he claimed as its sole discovery.

    about Michio Kaku…

    He is a clown,, he is a PR man ,and his works on String Theory are nothing to worth of mentioning , is worth to mention Russian Physics in the 70′s in the times soviet union were among the first in the work with the String Theory that now is very popular.

    good article..

    http://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/the-top-10-most-overrated-geniuses/

    • Steve Kikuchi / Jan 27 2014 5:55 pm

      Good post. I would think that Leonardo’s creativity is evidence of genius. In that he thought up things that no one else had on many occasions, and he had a broad array of talents. But he wasn’t the greatest genius ever, and there is no way to quantify or qualify who was the greatest ever. But certain “groups” of people will rally around their own and tirelessly promote them. Einstein is without a doubt the biggest beneficiary in terms of lobbying of any scientist. Leonardo is is overrated because his artistic abilities make a lot of his work easily visible. But he was likely a genius. Einstein was talented, look at his work re the Photoelectric Effect. But he is hardly the greatest physicist ever, nor the smartest man who ever lived.

      Kaku is a clown. A paid shill.

  142. Calvin / Dec 27 2013 12:37 am

    I see your point for some points especially Tesla I love him. But the scientists/mathematicians did do important things. One could argue Aristotle was a bad scientist because his theories were mostly incorrect. But he is one of the first people how could be called a scientist making him very important. Similar applies the list(although their actual achievements aren’t revolutionary).Also you criticized da Vinci because his invenions didn’t work. Many many inventions fail the first time.

  143. Tone / Dec 26 2013 1:39 am

    Well that was a wasted 5 mins if dribble. I notice nobody put their name to it.

  144. John Newman / Dec 25 2013 10:13 pm

    Trying to compare the intelligence of people in ancient times with those of today is an exercise in futility, owing to the spottiness of the record left for us to work with. How do we even really know that a particular figure from thousands of years ago, actually achieved what he is said to have achieved? With many figures in ancient cultures, we are relying on second and third hand tales written by people who, like us had opinions and biases, which have colored their writings about personalities of the past. I think that to be fair, we should only compare the “geniuses” of today with each other as we still have their work to evaluate and compare.

  145. Anonymous / Dec 23 2013 11:49 pm

    Realize that Da Vinci was under a contract to create inventions, whether they worked or not. His primary goal was to make money, and of course, creating a false idea makes him money and ensures that his competitors are led the wrong direction. This is emphasized in many historical analyses of Da Vinci.

    • Zen Galacticore / Dec 31 2013 3:39 am

      Da Vinci was under contract? To whom? The Roman Catholic pope?

      • Just an idiot / Feb 4 2014 9:04 pm

        Are you joking.? You correct peoples grammar. You tell us your highly educated. Left Wing blow hard.

  146. Anonymous / Dec 22 2013 9:38 pm

    Coming from someone who understands physics, mathematics, and science at an extremely high level (I would go into particulars but that’s pointless because a person can claim anything on the internet). This top ten list is laughable. Almost without exception all of these people are great geniuses. Your criticism of Kachu and Hawking show your lack of understanding it what they actually do. Their work is in a comprehensive understanding of the universe and relating physics to theology, psychology, mathematics.. etc. If you can’t appreciate their work than it shows a luck of understanding on your part

    • Anonymous / Dec 23 2013 2:52 pm

      i dont know who you are but i agree 100% with what you just said and that is also coming from a physicist, the fact that he claims Einstein, Michio kaku and Hawking are overrated is almost conclusive evidence pointing towards him having a lack of scientific knowledge

  147. Derp / Dec 21 2013 4:50 pm

    I think the author is really really jealous, and butthurt.
    Nice try, but this article sucks

  148. Anonymous / Dec 21 2013 8:37 am

    i think the person that wrote this doesn’t know that da vinci purposely drew his sketches wrong so if people tried to steal his ideas they wouldn’t work

  149. Sue / Dec 20 2013 10:11 pm

    I am grateful for everyone of the men the author has listed. Thanks for the list of other minds the author says are under rated. I am in awe of all of them.

  150. Glenn / Dec 19 2013 2:12 am

    This article is ridiculous. The writer cant even provide any supporting concrete evidence for his claims. Nice try.

  151. bzcjfklee@gmail.com / Dec 18 2013 9:16 pm

    At Joe request, dress casual, no flowers please.

  152. bzcjfklee@gmail.com / Dec 16 2013 8:43 pm

    Damn Valentine’s Day..

  153. Anonymous / Dec 13 2013 2:09 pm

    I would agree with you on everyone except Einstein and da vinci.., do you got any idea what’s Einstein’s theory is…? He was the first and last person whom actually understood how universe works., and his work simply changed the very fabric of physics and the best living physicist still hardly Einstein’s theory… Its a beautiful theory, if it wasn’t Einstein, we would still be stuck on Newtonian gravity, which himself knew was wrong…. And da vinci.., his drawings and works are unique and genius, many of his works are still not understood, or his drawings, they are absolutely unique and non can or had imitate his works….

  154. richards / Dec 13 2013 2:07 pm

    I would agree with you on everyone except Einstein and da vinci.., do you got any idea what’s Einstein’s theory is…? He was the first and last person whom actually understood how universe works., and his work simply changed the very fabric of physics and the best living physicist still hardly Einstein’s theory… Its a beautiful theory, if it wasn’t Einstein, we would still be stuck on Newtonian gravity, which himself knew was wrong…. And da vinci.., his drawings and works are unique and genius, many of his works are still not understood, or his drawings, they are absolutely unique and non can or had imitate his works….

  155. Hazel / Dec 8 2013 12:04 am

    Whoa
    I think you forgot to include yourself on this list
    Seriously
    If you can’t prove that you’re more intelligent than the geniuses you posted about you’re in no place to give such an unjustified and unobjective personal opinion

  156. Nicole / Dec 5 2013 3:08 pm

    Sometimes genius is in creativity not just IQ. This article was awful, it just kept repeating the say explanations for every ‘overrated genius’. Unsubstantiated nonsense written by someone who sounds pretty full of himself.

  157. carlostp11 / Dec 5 2013 9:19 am

    Pron blog site

    http://men.sexblog.pw/?diana

    best erotic novel vampire erotic erotic graphic novels erotic nudes free prono xxx

  158. Jacob / Dec 3 2013 3:21 am

    I think Newton should be on this list. He was a fucking idiot.

    • somnambulist melatonin / Dec 5 2013 5:43 am

      I think YOU should be on the list for not providing any supporting arguments for your claim.

    • Scott / Jan 10 2014 12:55 pm

      Actually, Newton is likely the greatest scientist and mathematician of all time. You’re probably just trolling though (or really stupid).

  159. yeahok / Dec 1 2013 8:01 pm

    This is based way to much on iq alone…. iq means nothing without imagination which da vinci and einstein were not lacking at all.. you cannot compare people based on something which you dont know.. you can not possibly say einstein just copied faraday when he did succeed in what he went out to achieve

  160. lol / Nov 30 2013 6:43 pm

    Wow such hostility in all the comments. While I don’t agree with all that the author says he is generally correct. There are many underrated genius that deserve much more light than those listed here. Einstein should be considered a genius for his work on general relativity, but even so he is probably the third most influential physicist in modern physics and much overrated.

  161. Sibonelo Prince Mqadi / Nov 30 2013 9:04 am

    The person who wrotes this article is wrong Isaac Newton is the best genius ever lived despites that there iz nt much history about him but I believe that he is the greatest genius ever lived

  162. Sibonelo Prince Mqadi / Nov 30 2013 8:59 am

    I thought Isaac Newton was the best genius ever lived. He was the great physicist, mathematician n a great inventer

  163. yousaf / Nov 28 2013 12:43 pm

    God Damn the fool wi wrote this article. I think this person has newly learned the word “overrated” and likes to use it alot saying Einstein, newton and even gauss are overrated. And do you even know who is Stephen hawking is? You piece of crap!

  164. Anonymous / Nov 26 2013 9:50 am

    lol just wasted my time

  165. Anonymous / Nov 25 2013 10:13 am

    got sick man this list was rubbish

  166. Anonymous / Nov 24 2013 9:06 pm

    How the hell can you state that Newton, Archimedes, and Gauss are smarter than Einstein if you can’t prove it in anyway, you dumb piece of shit.

  167. Anonymous / Nov 18 2013 7:49 pm

    This list makes me dislike you. Go shove a carrot up your asshole.

    • Anonymous / Nov 21 2013 3:02 am

      i second this

    • Anonymous / Dec 3 2013 3:50 am

      preach

  168. Anonymous / Nov 14 2013 9:23 am

    Since the author clearly thinks math is impossible, here is a simple equation: IQ ≠ Intelligence

    A genius is someone of insight or achievement. Safe to say everyone on this list qualifies, and that they had/have far more talent, ability, and creativity than the average Joe.

    • John D. Lamb / Nov 16 2013 9:46 am

      I would like to reiterate this statement. Whoever wrote this article is quite clearly restoring to some misguided resources and may not have any knowledge of Physics at all. To label one of the greatest thinkers, a man who initiated the idea of String Theory, a solution, an equation to everything that encompasses our universe; an overrated genius must be the most egregious and outrageous thing I’ve read this month. Einstein should

  169. Anonymous / Nov 14 2013 9:13 am

    The suggestion that someone does not possess a high IQ (not an actual measure of intelligence or a valid measure of revolutionary thought anyway) simply because half of their ideas or inventions don’t work immediately, is a beautiful illustration of the authors ignorance of the scientific method and how science and research are actually conducted. I guess he thinks Archimedes actually did everything by Eureka method and not the painstaking trial and error that every scientist in history has applied.

    Also humorous how the author is clearly baffled by mathematics and weights his rankings heavily on whether or not someone was revolutionary enough in that discipline to be a genius – as if there can be no other kind. Which is funny since Hawking is one of the most respected living mathematicians and held the same professors chair in math as Newton for several decades.

  170. Daniel de Lacroix / Nov 9 2013 1:35 am

    Some of the names you mentioned at the beginning of your list i would agree that they are not geniuses, but someone like Leonardo di Vinci could very well be considered ‘the genius’. A person like Einstein and others involved in science excelled in mathematics or their area of expertise. Leonardo was multifaceted and excelled at everything that intrigued him. he had a free associated mind which meant that even though he didn’t produce a lot in the short run, he ended up producing a significant amount of beautiful art and volumes of scientific and engineering knowledge that includes the following: flight, weighing scale, scuba diving equipment, the first parachute among others. And don’t forget of course his Mona Lisa and The Last Supper amongst other wonderful pieces of art. Also I would like to include, because I am a painter, that Leonardo was one of the first painters in europe to start using oil based paint rather than the traditional egg tempura based paint.
    If you won’t listen to me than i urge you to watch a BBC documentary that they did on Leonardo di Vinci. If there is anybody in history who was a genius it was him. thank you.

  171. close / Nov 8 2013 10:21 pm

    Where is N.Tesla?

    • Anonymous / Mar 23 2014 6:11 pm

      On the most underrated list. Seriously, inventing AC current as a “fuck you” to Edison is one of the most bad ass contributions to science ever.

  172. Anonymous / Nov 6 2013 5:34 pm

    Your list is rubbish, people like Einstein, Hawking and Leonardo da Vinci have made an amazing contribution to their fields 😠😠😠😟

  173. Sten / Nov 5 2013 2:12 pm

    Good list. Educated scientists I think will agree with it. The big question is about Einstein — everyone who knows science knows that he is overrated, that is not controversial — but was he also a fraud? His original 1905 paper on relativity didn’t bother to cite all the relevant work that had gone of before. Einstein clearly wanted to leave the impression that he was doing something so novel that there was no relevant literature — or else he was just lazy. Or both. He did have a reputation for laziness. Certainly if you read Einstein’s popular books, such as “The World as I see It”, you see he was at best a 3rd rate thinker on the issues he addressed. A genius? Obviously not. A charlatan? Perhaps. Boosted by the Zionist and Jewish network: definitely. Ironic, because there are so many Jews who are so much smarter than Einstein. For example: Pauli, Michelson, and even Feynman. Yes even Feynman, who although at best a 2nd rate scientist, was smarter than Einstein.

    • Anonymous / Nov 10 2013 1:51 am

      Yeah Feynman was super overrated. Any regular physicist can elegantly express and understand Quantum Electrodynamics.

    • Anonymous / Nov 14 2013 8:58 am

      Everyone who knows science knows Einstein is overrated? What a stunningly brazen statement of your own ignorance.

      Guess you must know more physicists than the IUPAC, which commentated Einsteins “miracle year” in which he wrote the four papers that revolutionized Newtonian laws and laid the foundation upon which modern physics stands. There is no single more important and encompassing work than special relativity, and any actual learned scholar would tell you they would give anything to write one paper as brilliant as Einstein, let alone four in one year.

      …. As far as the rest of the list, describing the literal embodiment of a “Renaissance Man” as anything other than a genius shows that the only thing overrated is the notion you can quantify genius without bias towards what you think is important or difficult (or in the case of this author, what little he understands).

  174. Anonymous / Nov 1 2013 6:02 pm

    You’re a fucking dumb ass for even thinking that these guys are overrated. Unlike you these guys are geniuses.

  175. Anonymous / Oct 31 2013 11:28 am

    Wow, this is terrible. You’re just an idiot. So glad I learned that in fact Einstein did not invent physics! Of course he used the ideas and maths of his predecessors. Every scientist stands on the shoulder of giants. That doesn’t mean that relativity wasn’t still one of the greatest achievements of the human intellect. 100 years later there are still very few people who truly understand it. You, obviously, are not one of them. Dumbass.

  176. Vicky Sharma / Oct 30 2013 6:19 pm

    Do you know that you have pretty less knowledge (almost zero percent)about these personalities. What is your qualification? You are a fool

  177. Anonymous / Oct 28 2013 6:36 pm

    You sir… are (at the least) retarted

  178. Hendrik Janson / Oct 28 2013 5:12 pm

    Just read your blog on atheism. You really are sick.

  179. budoy / Oct 26 2013 10:19 pm

    ALBERT EINSTEIN???? NO. 3???? SERIOUSLY??? now I ask you, do you really know this guy??? have you meet them in person??? are you a vampire or a gumiho who lives thousands of years and already meet this people during their era??? Seriously dude the way you rank and put your ideas about this guy’s ESPECIALLY EINSTEIN… I can say that

    YOU ARE THE MOST OVERRATED GENIUS ENTHUSIAST WRITER EVER!

  180. Hendrik Janson / Oct 26 2013 4:41 pm

    This is the most stupid, short sighted, senseless, arrogant, self overrating, self serving piece of hog-wash I ever read.

  181. iceknight / Oct 24 2013 7:27 pm

    Blah blah blah and of course, you make no mention of Egyptian, Japanese and Indian scientists or their scientific work. “ignored by media” can happen easily. Chill out.

    • Mzuma Kotto / Dec 25 2013 10:35 pm

      All the writers are ignoring the great scientis of the great kindom of mali who invented astromony, enginering, matematic, scinefifc proces and religions. you are al rasist white devils.

  182. Anonymous / Oct 24 2013 12:50 pm

    This is garbage. You might as well target people from the philo-science genius era.

  183. Nobody / Oct 23 2013 7:05 pm

    Nobody said Albert Einstein was a mathematical genius – he was a Physics genius.

  184. Anonymous / Oct 20 2013 1:40 am

    trollol

  185. Anonymous / Oct 18 2013 8:12 pm

    How is Isaac Newton ignored by the media?

    • Anonymous / Oct 24 2013 2:04 am

      Because he is rarely mentioned at all in comparison to other notable people

  186. nilesh / Oct 18 2013 3:48 am

    you miss ” richard feynmann ” no ordinarry m
    an

  187. Anonymous / Oct 16 2013 3:01 pm

    Absolutely hilarious how most of his geniuses who were “ignored by the media” are for the most part Jewish.

    • iceknight / Oct 24 2013 7:33 pm

      not sure what you are blabbering about but he was bitching about Einstein too..

      • Anonymous / Nov 10 2013 1:54 am

        It’s also pretty fantastic how he acts like Pythagoras has been boosted by the media. All those scribes wouldn’t stop talking about him. This guy writes like a middle schooler.

  188. Derek / Oct 15 2013 5:48 am

    Who are you to criticize these geniuses IQ dosent define you’re intelligents and all inventors have failed inventions nobody’s perfect Albert Einstein is probably the smartest person in modern times his contributions to science are unmatched by any scientist in the last 300 years you’re opinions on these so called overrated geniuses is extremely ignorant

  189. shakingMyheadatThis / Oct 15 2013 2:54 am

    Winners have a thousand fathers and losers are an orphan. I know you crave recognition which you are only receiving for being less than adequate here. #epicfail

  190. Serkan / Oct 15 2013 12:02 am

    are you a retarded person? i read a single paragraph of your article and i feel like i caught your stupidity, this must be the worst article ever.

  191. marsh / Oct 13 2013 11:03 pm

    Poor, poor article.

  192. AW / Oct 10 2013 10:10 am

    Where is nikola tesla?

    • Derek / Oct 15 2013 5:54 am

      Newton is also extremely overrated

      • clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right / Nov 17 2013 1:32 am

        Nope.

  193. Anonymous / Oct 9 2013 7:13 am

    enough with comment his article, he’s just want you to put his name on your article called ” Top 11 most overrated geniuses- itnobody ” based on Google.com and wordpress.com . you know who most genius all the time? ” GOD ” that tittle belong to “GOD”, cheers :D

    • Derek / Oct 15 2013 5:51 am

      The only gods are the earth and the sun

    • Anonymous / Oct 24 2013 2:06 am

      Fuck off with the whole religion shit. How many disasters, genocides, wars, and other horrible deaths does it take to realize perhaps the religious system isn’t perfect?

      • Reddit Armi. / Dec 8 2013 12:19 am

        How many retarded militant-atheists does it take to realize that religion itself made an impact on Science? Also, wars are mostly based on politics, you pseudo-intellectual fuck nugget.

  194. Peter / Oct 9 2013 4:40 am

    They writer of this list is an idiot plz don’t listen to him

    • Ray Hager / Mar 9 2014 1:04 pm

      I agree. Bill gates was brilliant because he upgraded us all from DOS. I wonder if the man who created this list is over 25 years old.

  195. Guest / Sep 28 2013 2:27 am

    What exactly makes you such a social and intellectual genius as to critique and badmouth some of the most celebrated thinkers of humanity? Where is your ethos? If you are in a position to trash these brilliant men then why is your article full of flaws? Your data is non existent. Your blame falls entirely upon “the media” even in the case of Pythagoras. Pythagoras is never on the news on my tv last time that I checked. Also your entire article is teeming with grammatical flaws. I’d expect a genius such as yourself to know that it is incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition and that appositives such as “however” are to be set off with commas. Next time you want to criticize people more intelligent and famous than yourself, do us a favor: don’t.

    • adam c / Sep 29 2013 11:40 am

      well said… very well said…

    • Derek / Oct 15 2013 5:57 am

      I completely agree with you this author is a moron

      • Anonymous / Nov 10 2013 2:22 pm

        Big Daddy Guest seems to be on the loose.

  196. Vishesh Dewan / Sep 25 2013 7:13 am

    You obviously don’t have much of an idea about what genius/intelligence really is, do you? you seem to heavily be relying on IQ statistics over here. That’s a give away.

  197. Paul Michalak / Sep 23 2013 1:57 pm

    Da Vinci is one of my favourite genius. His skills were very mixed. He may have also created the first ever photograph, the Turin Shroud. But amazing pictures of helicopters, and just his knowledge of anatomy. You cannot fail to see the genius there.

  198. Anonymous / Sep 22 2013 8:20 pm

    lmao whoever wrote this was retarded.

  199. Anonymous / Sep 22 2013 3:24 pm

    You really like the phrase “ignored in the media”

  200. varad phadnis / Sep 21 2013 11:35 am

    but the most important genius of all time is worlds best mathematian late mr. shrinivas ramanujan! he is all time great genius of all time!

    • Anonymous / Sep 24 2013 9:46 am

      Nope, Leonhard Euler Is Greatest Mathematics Ever Walked In Planet

  201. Anonymous / Sep 20 2013 5:47 pm

    Who is the genius? The guy who invents stuff or the guy who use the others guys inventions and becomes rich of it.

  202. Katokiari Kitekumelukizkuzuki / Sep 20 2013 6:47 am

    pick any person from this list at random and subtract her IQ by 10 to find out the IQ of the OP of this article. LoL, gota love the internet.

  203. Katokiari Kitekumelukizkuzuki / Sep 20 2013 6:44 am

    The Top 10 Most Overrated “Geniuses” >> people who write articles like these are retards themselves, yet they don’t even suspect it. The irony.

  204. Anonymous / Sep 19 2013 2:40 pm

    I find the fact that someone who would take on a subject like this might have some concept of what genius is. You obviously think genius is gauged by original, groundbreaking theories which eventually are proven true. If this is your criteria, then you are a fool. Genius comes in all forms and fashions, but one of the stalwart traits is being able to take information you have been given and apply it in such a way that is groundbreaking. Einstein was a master of this, and to question the man’s intellect is ridiculous, I agree with your placement of Stephen Hawking and Ben Franklin, but most of your other data is speculative at best. But the crown jewel of mistakes is putting Da Vinci on this list. Take a moment to actually study his notebooks, then open your mouth.

    • Anonymous / Sep 21 2013 1:25 am

      Thank you, you reflect my thoughts of this post like a mirror. Einstein blew me away, but when I saw davinci, I almost lost it. First of all, davinci was original and groundbreaking, but as you said, where Einstein shined was building upon genius. Yes he had to use others’ math, but he along with Bohr, Schrodinger, and many others, birthed us out of the dead Newtonian physics era. A try genius builds on what comes before, with his own personal insight.

    • Derek / Oct 15 2013 6:11 am

      You sound way more intellectual than this author I agree with everything you said

  205. Anonymous / Sep 19 2013 1:05 am

    Whoever wrote this article is a mental midget

  206. john / Sep 18 2013 2:57 pm

    Finally an objective analysis of these lionized celebrities
    .

  207. Daniel / Sep 18 2013 4:54 am

    Just because Rosalind Franklin and John von Neumann are not as often mentioned in the media as Da Vinci and Einstein, it does not mean the latter scientists are “overrated”; but, I do believe that von Neumann, despite being a polymath, is underrated. You know nothing of theoretical physics and it seems to me your hatred of atheism has led you to write this poorly written drivel. FYI, Rosalind Franklin was an atheist, too!

  208. Chris / Sep 18 2013 12:51 am

    Very ignorant author…people like this are a waste and belong in jail for their bullshit

    • Kay / Oct 1 2013 11:29 am

      Ignorant, bullshit, belong in jail…Seriously? Something very wrong with you son. Grow up.

      • Anonymous / Oct 24 2013 2:09 am

        Agreed. Just because people don’t appeal to your authority figures doesn’t mean they belonged jailed. In that case, Chris would belong in several people’s jails probably.

  209. Ayoub / Sep 16 2013 4:28 pm

    This article is TRUE SHIT :D

    The writer is talking about using intelligence and not only memorie, but have you used your intelligence while talking about IQ?

    IQ my friends means NOTHING AT ALL! People thought once that the higher is the IQ the more intelligent is the person. Not today!

  210. Jason / Sep 14 2013 10:03 pm

    Why does the author put so much credence into IQ? Great physicists like Richard Feynman had barely above average IQs, but clearly demonstrated a level of understanding far beyond the vast majority of people. On the flip-side, I have abnormally high IQ, but I wouldn’t consider my reasoning capacity anywhere near the same level as people like Einstein or Heisenberg. Btw, 130 of the best physicists in the world today voted Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg, Bohr and Maxwell as the five greatest physicists of all time…they even voted Steven Hawking as 16th.

    • Jason / Sep 14 2013 10:04 pm

      I’ll give you Gates, Watson and Edison though…very overrated.

    • David Sairf / Sep 18 2013 3:37 am

      Probably because myriads of people use IQ as a basis for intelligence, though it merely says how quick your synapses work to solve simple problems such as 22/2=11

  211. You are hurting society / Sep 13 2013 2:02 pm

    The existence of this article makes the world dumber. The author possesses no knowledge whatsoever, as demonstrated by brilliant commens such as:

    “Since some atheists keep saying that “Bill Gates invented the computer” or something foolish like that I decided to put him on this list.”

    What a brilliant statement. Someone hand this man the Nobel prize for literature.

    Please PLEASE erase any information your brain may have inadvertently logged during the reading of this article. For the good of humanity, the author should remove this article from the internet, cut off his hands, and remove his voice box so that he may never communicate his shockingly ignorant ideas to another human again.

    • Katokiari Kitekumelukizkuzuki / Sep 20 2013 6:51 am

      the author should be shot on sight and fed to hungry pigs

      • Kay / Oct 1 2013 11:31 am

        And people like you should rather remain quiet, especially since you have nothing intelligent to say/add.

    • Kay / Oct 1 2013 11:35 am

      The only person making the world dumber is pseudo-scientists like Hawking. I cannot believe people buy in to his philosophical rubbish.

  212. Jairin Ervin / Sep 12 2013 12:51 pm

    Da Vinci didn’t test his inventions most of the time; you saying that they failed is incorrect, some did succeed but others he didn’t test, in fact we tested his inventions that he didn’t put to the test, they worked. he has covered more fields than anyone now a days. He literally earned the term “modern mind”. You even saying anyone could invent those things is complete ignorance. THE TIMES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, he was way beyond his time. Please respond to me, I would love to see your argument, and I don’t mean to be rude but when people make accusations especially about Da Vinci when they are completely wrong, it pisses me off.

  213. Barbaselo / Sep 9 2013 7:57 pm

    What? Is Bill Gates considered a genius? I did’t know. I know he produced the first Basic language for what was then called home computers, which was the beginning of the revolution that made people be able to program computers themselves in their homes.

    But that doesn’t require a genius. It just requires to have knowledge enough and be at the right place at the right time. Everyone over 45yrs remembers Applesoft Basic. At that time, around 1977, Apple and Microsoft were partners.

    And you also write “The actual pioneers of the computer were people like Charles Babbage, Alan Turing, and John von Neumann.”

    Would you like to know who really started programmable automation?

    Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card#History

    (Punched cards were first used around 1725 by Basile Bouchon)

    • James Reed / Sep 18 2013 12:35 pm

      Bill Gates is rightly revered as a genius, but for the wrong reasons. Nobody much knows, but he wrote the first 8-bit BASIC interpreter when he was 19 in hex code, on paper tape and the pre-loader for it, BEFORE anyone else had done such a thing. Make no mistake, You have the be seriously clever just to do that, BUT he *also* was business savvy enough to sell it to the Altair guy (the first real consumer computer), not just as a one-off but as a the license – that’s an incredible combination of skills. He was then enough of a genius to realise software was the future and clever enough to make himself the richest man in the world and keep himself there. The IBM MS-DOS deal alone is pure business genius, say what you like and dislike him, but no ordinary person could’ve pulled this stuff off. Of course he underestimated the Internet, but being a genius doesn’t mean being faultless – also IE and MSN still hold huge market share.

      All said though, I rate Steve Wozniack of Apple as probably a greater genius than Gates, in the strict sense of the word. Certainly technical wise he could be up there, as well as being the world’s best logic gate circuit designer, he practically invented the personal computer, along with the mouse, keyboard, monitor setup, he could also code BASIC interpreter level stuff too. Worth reading his autobio.

  214. Anonymous / Sep 8 2013 12:22 am

    you lack so much knowledge on these people. you dont even make any valid points.

  215. Anonymous / Sep 7 2013 9:51 am

    You Know, the Google link is like – “The Top 10 Most Overrated Geniuses – itnobody”
    Sounds like you yourself agree that nobody is overrated !

  216. Richie Banks / Sep 4 2013 9:43 pm

    All I’ve got to contribute is that Da Vinci’s designed were often designed with deliberate flaws in them as a sort of makeshift protection of what we would no call his intellectual property. His ideas were not completely developed etc… due largely to the sheer quantity of them rushing through his head. Some of the rebuilt models of his were taken from scribbles he’d probably have destroyed them if he thought anyone would judge him for them or care, like Michelangelo did later in his life. In fact, I am surprised he is not in there in his place, although I do agree the extent of Da Vinci’s feats are exaggerated for the sake of inspiration and narrative effect, if you research him properly you will find he was in all likelihood an outstanding genius when it came to perceiving, representing and manipulating the structure of the world through art and understanding. Heed my bias as a Da Vinci fan though as I summarise if 75% of his inventions failed, this still leaves evidence of significant ingenuity.

  217. Anonymous / Sep 4 2013 11:14 am

    You sir are completely inept, Albert Einstein is a personal hero of mine, and reading into him a lot I am frequently amazed time after time finding out about the different breakthrough’s and discoveries he created. There are 3 main theories in physics: Relativity, Quantum mechanics, and gravitation. Not only was he a pioneer in developing quantum mechanics, the forefront of modern physics, he corrected many of newtons laws of gravity and motion, and was the origin of special and general relatively. Einstein fixed a lot of the problems physics was having pre 1900 and was a leader in the quantum revolution at the start of the century along with Max Planck, Erwin Schrodinger, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and later on Richard Feynman. If you seriously think Einstein is overrated, you clearly no nothing about theoretical physics.

  218. abcd / Sep 4 2013 8:46 am

    Dude, You are overrating newton a lot. His major work was calculus, a crude form of which was discovered by Archimedes before him. Newton only gave form to it.

    • Anonymous / Sep 4 2013 9:08 am

      Epic reply.. Sarcasm eh??

  219. Blog_Voice / Sep 2 2013 1:37 pm

    Creativity can’t be measured by IQ. And creative people are the ones who come up with new ideas, not the absolute-logical ones(logic helps more in IQ). Even Einstein said that.
    IQ is only a simple analysis of how fast you can learn things which are already there, which exactly what logic is(working with the things in your hand).
    Creating something new requires a very different kind of intelligence. Called imagination, a very powerful imagination that works well with their logic.
    One suggestion to the stupid blog owner.
    Before studying on the inventions of notable people. Study on the human mind.

  220. harry / Sep 1 2013 8:16 pm

    I kinda agree with you at this article, except on your opinions for Einstein and Hawking. If you really understand Einstein theories, you would be amazed by his originality, and persistence in pursuing a new and better theory. About Hawking, I agree that his work is less important compared to Einstein, but he worked most of his theories without pencils and papers, the two basic needs of theorists. That is, in my opinion, the genius of Hawking. And if you know about Hawking’s information lost problem, a puzzle that he proposed around seventies, nobody can really resolve it even until today.

  221. Joe 12-Pack / Aug 30 2013 4:27 pm

    I have no opinion. I just want to be one of the gang.

  222. Jason / Aug 29 2013 7:57 am

    The list is a good list. I have studied many inventors and was myself surprised of these individuals making the top list. Lots of Italians are going to defend Da Vinci as genius but it’s so true his inventions are nothing more than worthless fantasies. He was a good artist but as a inventor there is nothing worth mentioning.

  223. Anonymous / Aug 29 2013 2:50 am

    Anyone thinking that can judge someone by their I.Q. is an asshole.

  224. Anonymous / Aug 27 2013 9:45 pm

    Albert Einstein is not an overrated genius. He did apply some of his predecessors work for his theory of relativity, but the idea is completely his own. He worked for years on that theory day and night, and what he did changed science. It is true that he is not the greatest scientist of all time, but he was one of them. And he will not be criticized by an ignorant fool like you, not today sir. Also, actually learn more about these people before you criticize them, you ignoramus.

  225. Anonymous / Aug 27 2013 6:14 pm

    The person who wrote this is an idiot.

  226. Gegenstand / Aug 27 2013 9:37 am

    Having just visited an exhibition on DaVinci’s inventions with prototypes built on his drawings, I support the conclusion that he was overrated as an inventor and scientist. He was fixated on gears and drew very simple machines that were never constructed and would not have worked. He did not understand basic physics since the tank he drew that was meant to travel in multiple directions, would, on the basis of his design, not been able to move at all. Da Vinci liked to doodle machines. He was not an inventor and did not invent a single useful machine. He is an accomplished artist and his anatomical drawings are the perhaps the first of his kind, if only for the reason that he studied human cadavers. However, it doesn’t require particular genious to render the drawings from a scientific perspective. Most of his accomplishments are artistic but the fact that he is popularly considered a genious in other fields like engineering and science is completely unjustified.

  227. eddy / Aug 27 2013 4:25 am

    If you read the about page of Mr. Nobody it’s clear that he considers himself one of the most underrated geniuses of all time.

    He says, “With the highest innate ability for argumentation logic (probably the highest that ever existed), high intelligence, high intuition, and high originality I wonder how much of my knowledge I should share with the world…and how much I should keep secret…”

    That’s why he hates the geniuses who have been recognized coz his own genius (imagined) has not been recognized. Even his name suggests his hatred towards the world for not recognizing his genius and not making him famous.

    Sad really.

    • David Sairf / Sep 18 2013 3:42 am

      Talent is a cheap commodity though, so really there are far more unknown geniuses out there. Along with that most of these people don’t know how to get anywhere with their purported talent and thus only few can become recognized.

  228. Daly / Aug 26 2013 8:23 pm

    Sounds like an angry little mathematician. Physicists get the credit for the big discoveries and changes in our understanding… Blame your hated media. Not them. Aside from the fact that this is one of the most biases pieces of drivel I have ever read, it’s very childish. Here’s just two teeny problems out of the overflowing bowl of error that you bestowed upon a sad WordPress: 1) DaVinci was predominantly working in secret due to this thing called the Inquistion. You may have heard of it. Imagine how hard that would make… Anything and everything for a creator such as himself. 2) Kaku is an amazing theoretical physicist and is regarded as such. He may not be one of the top 10, but he’s far from one of the bottom 10. He’s well known for being the face of modern physics, for boiling the extremely hard to understand down to a nice oatmeal that the common man can digest. Science needs this. The world needs this. Hate the man because he’s making the universe accessible to everyone? Jokes… That’s why I love the man.
    Look at the great world that we live in, a flake such as yourself is able to attack at least 6 exceedingly important men because they aren’t mathematicians and gets read because of it. I’m gonna start a word press complaining abou how boorish mathematicians are, about how they want sole credit when shared credit is due. Wait, no I won’t. It’s much easier to destroy than it is to create. You my non-friend took the easy route, the path well traveled. Shame.

  229. Christina Novoa / Aug 25 2013 11:56 pm

    Unless the idiot who wrote this article is an acceptably-rated genius, they need to shut their mediocre mouth. This, as the urban youth would call it, is an example of “hating” at it’s finest.

  230. Anonymous / Aug 23 2013 10:56 pm

    Unbelievable, I feel I must have lost a few IQ points reading this uneducated trash.

    Einstein and Leonardo da Vinci…really?

  231. Anonymous / Aug 23 2013 9:59 am

    Albert Einstein is a theoretical Physicist not merely a mathematician those are different field…

  232. Anonymous / Aug 22 2013 11:35 am

    If you mean the mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauß – by the way it is written with an ß, not with ss.

    • Anonymous / Sep 1 2013 3:39 am

      ß is pronounced as a double s, and it is written as such when you can’t produce a ß

  233. me / Aug 21 2013 10:52 am

    My list of overrated dumbasses…

    Nos. 1-10

    You.

  234. Anonymous / Aug 21 2013 3:08 am

    getting other’s work and work on it? c’mon we all know that every people in this world starts with nothing.. and you think you can make your own math and another brand new basis of science that you can call your own? in that phrases you appeared to be illogocal in your point everything that … every principles in any fields of subject that is accepted as a fact, it is accepted becoz its the truth… not that they just choose it as the truth but becoz it is how it goes.. like fire.. if you put enough heat on a gasoline itll sure creates fire, fire is created not becoz you did something, but becoz thats how it goes … when you were born you dont know anyting at all.. you just learn and adopt.. which means the information stored in your brain came from something.. you dont create your own information lol…dont you think that einstein’s work is something new.. cause if einstein’s work already exists then why would the world declare it as its einstein’s.. and we are not sure if the information we get, we read, we heard is all true… adition and deletion is a factor as well.. specially when the informations about something or about someone is half a century or several centuries away.. like da vinci and pythagoras… you just like to critcize or make an argument… your basis for a genius is to create new… and do something that has never been known ever.. toinks

  235. Anonymous / Aug 19 2013 7:09 pm

    I award this guy with the Darwin Award; get out of my gene pool.

  236. Anonymous / Aug 18 2013 5:41 pm

    how old are you, 14?

  237. Anonymous / Aug 17 2013 7:46 pm

    Intelligence means nothing if a person has no drive. Many misinterpret da Vinci’s drive with his intelligence. An example of this is that everyone has the idea of a flying car, but no one knows how they would do it so they don’t make an attempt. If humans did not have this mindset there would be more of these “impossible inventions.”

  238. Anonymous / Aug 16 2013 12:44 pm

    One of the funniest comments section I have ever read. Lol. It’s like reading an episode of The Big Bang Theory where OP is Sheldon, only a few intellectual levels lower. Oh, and I’m pretty sure you’ll attack my intelligence just because a certain television program that is themed on geniuses entertains me. Just freely do so, it’ll entertain me more.lol

  239. Anonymous / Aug 16 2013 7:40 am

    I agree with most except Einstein LDV and Gates.Einstein was a shocker.For the record Einstein was bad at calculating ,not mathematics in general.Mathematics is a lot more than calculations on which Einstein is amazing(calculus,etc).He is probably the best physicist of all time.

    • Don / Aug 25 2013 12:15 pm

      Gates? Really? REALLY? What do you think he did that is even remotely genius?

  240. Anonymous / Aug 13 2013 12:27 pm

    whoever wrote this article is an underrated idiot…

  241. K / Aug 12 2013 11:02 am

    Da Vinci overrated No1 ? Go kill yourself .

    • Anonymous / Aug 25 2013 5:21 pm

      Agree with first. Disagree with second.

      • Anonymous / Sep 6 2013 11:08 am

        whoever made this list is severly mistaken with some.. well, most of his or her claims.

  242. Anonymous / Aug 11 2013 11:09 pm

    People, c’mon. This drivel has nothing to do with who’s smarter than who etc…etc…It’s all about hate and disrespect for the people responsible for turning the Bibles version of the universe on it’s head. Folks like this can never be dealt with in a normal, objective way. Smile, nod, move on.

  243. Ari / Aug 11 2013 11:20 am

    LOL..Einstein is overrated??? what a moron you are? I am not talking about Da Vinci who was one of the greatest ..Bill Gates O.K Nobody considers Watson and Crick as outstanding genious.
    Edison was an outstanding genious considering the fact that he had no formal education ! nobody can buy or copy 1000 patents .So your list doesn’t make any sense..

  244. Its_not_bad_to_think_you're_smart_if_you_are / Aug 10 2013 9:24 am

    What an astonishing article.. Up until this day I had no idea that these people were so over-rated?
    Einstein, Watson and Da Vinci I think are the most over-rated of them all.. They are actually ignorant fools.. Einstein specially is not even close to genius because he used other peoples work who came before him and worked on that.. What he should have done was forget all previous people’s work and build physics from the scratch.. That would make him a genius..Hmm.. Stephen Hawking on the other-hand is also a fool, that’s because.. err.. He can’t walk..I guess.. Seems a better logic than the one posted.. This article completely changed the way I think and enlightened me. Now I’m completely sure that Humanity is doomed because Intelligence among mass population seems to be following a negative exponential curve.. I don’t really like the internet. That’s because it gives “shitheads” an opportunity to spread there..well..shit.. more like bullshits(oh god.. I’m damned have to listen to that “ad hominem” again).. I reckon nihilism is the new cool thing.. I guess i can’t blame people either. Without it they are just a normal bunch of guys who doesn’t have anything else to show for their achievements in life. The thumb rule is, ” You challenge what is established blindly, and you’re instantaneously a 100 I.Q point more smarter”, i guess that’s the absolute measurement scale of ingenuity.. at least after reading this article I think it is. hmm. I’m quite sure this comment will be subject to severe scrutiny, followed by shameless cherry-picking, and then blatant accusation would be made about not arguing within some accepted bounds. well I’m pretty delighted to say in defense that…I simply “Don’t Care”… that sums it up I guess.

    • Anonymous / Aug 12 2013 2:46 am

      Spot on mate.. You’re totally right..

    • Anonymous / Aug 12 2013 2:56 am

      Didn’t read everything but come on…. ‘I can’t be a genius because I cannot walk’? What a shitty comment…

      • Anonymous / Aug 12 2013 3:34 am

        You think he meant, hawking’s not a genious cuz he can’t walk, because as you yourself pointed out.. You didn’t read it all.. People these days just tries to find fault.. Read before you comment.

    • Anonymous / Aug 20 2013 8:32 am

      Its easy to criticize others when you haven’t contributed anything

    • Derek / Oct 15 2013 6:07 am

      You’re retarded

  245. Tom / Aug 7 2013 6:31 pm

    The fact that Einstein is on here demonstrates your ignorance of physics. Einstein was the first to visualise and publish on special and general relativity, which revolutionised our understanding of the universe. He stands alongside Newton and Galileo. He also made important contributions to quantum physics. You should be embarrassed at yourself.

    • Tom / Aug 7 2013 6:36 pm

      Ah, now I see all the anti socialist/atheist links to blog posts.

      That explains a great deal about tyour pathetic grasp of science and logic.

      • Samuel Terik / Aug 8 2013 11:46 pm

        Man, this is the single largest load of muttering crap I’ve ever read. You have to do RESEARCH when you write an article. Don’t just go on wikipedia, even if you would read the entirety of the references available it’s still not enough. And for the record, despite popular belief, Atheism is a sign of intellect in the 21st century by intellects and theism is considered (by real intellects) to be moronic and your insecurity about that is reflected in your anti social behavior towards Atheists. (I’m hinting on your constant linking atheism to what it has nothing to do with, like everything in this article for example.) As student at CIT I can assure you that much of this is dead wrong in clearly show a very shallow research and poor comprehension of the subject. I advise you to forget about writing articles about something you lack so much understanding of until you have a little more reliable data.

  246. Anonymous / Aug 6 2013 12:30 am

    Hey dude, science is developing from previous. so Einstein didn’t deserve to be overrated. he had make some incredible contribution, this is too subjective bullshit

  247. Anonymous / Aug 2 2013 4:39 pm

    Someone is butt frustrated.

  248. raju / Aug 2 2013 7:18 am

    It was okay till Stephen Hawking.
    but Albert Einstein is also in your list.Seriously??
    Clearly you are not a science lover.
    And you don’t know anything about STR and GTR and how Einstein did what he did.

    Now coming back to your post:-

    1) Einstein himself said that he had hard time with maths. So there is no point of being overrated. And obviously he was a physicist not a mathematician.
    2) Obviously he was a successor of james clerck maxwell and farady. Scientists don’t start their inventions from scratch. And if maxwell and faraday and others before him were so intelligent then why couldn’t they do what einstein did.
    3) One doesn’t need a high IQ for such discoveries. what is required is love , passion and lots of time.
    4) You compared him with riemann. As i said he was not a mathematician. But it was his idea…

    sorry i wanted to write more but i think you don’t deserve even this much.
    next time, go write a blog on politics or “how to make people like you” :) but stay away from physics.

    • Salil / Aug 6 2013 2:48 pm

      I love this response. Had the same shock in my eyes when Einstein came up in this list. The miracle year of 1905, the perseverance to move from the special theory to learn all the mathematics needed and then to conceive of the idea that gravitational interactions result from the geometry of a 4 Dimensional space time – if this is not genius, no idea what is.

  249. referencement conseils / Aug 2 2013 5:49 am

    Thank you, I have recently been looking
    for information about this topic for a while and yours is
    the greatest I’ve discovered till now. However, what concerning the bottom line? Are you positive concerning the source?

  250. Anonymous / Aug 1 2013 2:28 am

    Trollin ?

  251. Abdulbak / Jul 30 2013 2:34 pm

    He also states “Since some atheists keep saying that “Bill Gates invented the computer” or something foolish like that I decided to put him on this list.” This moron is probably some sort of christian moron.

  252. Anonymous / Jul 30 2013 10:15 am

    Fucking idiot motherfucker, die… Pythagor theory you say might seem simple NOW, although it would look impossible at the times he invented that, it was like middle-ages… Leonardo Da Vinci had plans for Planes in middle ages and air ballons, he drew Mona Lisa, you think this might seem nothing so what Mona Lisa, well maybe you pretty much know NOTHING about art and deep shit about it so you can’t understand why it is unavailable to say how much would it be worth… 1 grader bitch gtfo to school and after 12 years kill yourself, so no other people have to teach irrogant fuckers… Btich your mother is a fucking whore spammer motherfucking gay, lesbian BITCH LIKE YOU DAD. Her pussy is not deep but negative so she has pussy-type dick…

  253. Anonymous 2111 / Jul 27 2013 4:29 am

    To itsnobody:

    This article and the comments are the funniest I’ve ever seen!! I am going to ask a few questions about the article because of the amount of controversy surrounding the article.

    What is your personal definition of ‘Overrated’?
    What is your personal definition of ‘Genius’?
    What qualities must a person possess to be defined as a genius?
    Is being overrated connected to the media? Explain.
    Did you want to prove a certain point to the public using this article? If so, what was that point?
    What do you think about the controversial comments that surround your article?

    P.S. This is not a personal attack on you … I just have a few inquiries about this article :)

  254. crossx / Jul 25 2013 11:13 am

    you are such a nuisance. I’m a physics student and i know the difference between Einstein and Faraday. Faraday had nothing to do with theoretical physics but Einstein’s relativity is purely theoretical. Don’t give wrong information to people. Einstein was one of the greatest physicists and he will stay as a great physicist, what he brought is so revolutionary that you can’t just neglect it.
    If it wasn’t for Einstein I would have fallen into your trap of degrading all these geniuses.

  255. Anonymous / Jul 23 2013 11:40 am

    Whoever wrote this is obviously not a genius either. The author of this blog is not credible or reliable and most likely not educated.

  256. a / Jul 21 2013 8:38 am

    This website is great 5f7604f39762c98d851823727ded3113

  257. Anonymous / Jul 15 2013 8:01 pm

    Whoever wrote this is clearly retarded.
    You can tell by the continual allusions to IQ, and how x didn’t have a high IQ or probably didn’t have a high iq = therefore not a genius. The idea that you require a high IQ to be a genius, or that you aren’t a genius even if you made important contributions but had a low IQ… is a sure sign of complete idiocy.

    • Tom / Aug 7 2013 6:39 pm

      Yes, there is some bouncer with an IQ of 195 who is trying to get scientific papers about God’s existence published in peer-reviewed journals. A high IQ doesn’t necessitate genius.

  258. Muhammad / Jul 14 2013 12:33 pm

    These men have all contributed to the world in a gargantuan way. Albert Einstein for example made a theory that would take us to the moon. Bill gates is not a genius in the fields of engineering or any type of science. Although he was a genius in business and excelled Microsoft forward no matter what happened. These are my regards on this entry.

  259. TBA / Jul 12 2013 11:58 am

    Great, If Leornardo da Vinci wasn’t a genius who will be? He contributed to humanity in many ways.. He is considered genius because many people appreciate his effort, and you’re not.. Just because someone expanding other theory it doesn’t mean they are less intellect than the founder, IN FACT they should be more genius as they can think outside the box while the founder only stuck on that theory they found, They can found something new from something else and it is in fact harder than found something that completely new as the room for someone to found something beyond something is lesser. Let’s say that Albert Einstein found something use Faraday as inspiration, in fact he is genius if we consider Faraday as genius then Einstein is beyond that, because he could found something that even Faraday the genius couldn’t realize or found…

    And nobody said Bill Gates build computer, only you said that, so according to that you’re maybe the atheist, He is called Genius because he was from office boy then he can create Microsoft and make the company like now.. Not many people can do it, being able to crawl from bottom to the top..

    Please appreciate them, called them genius was some ways to appreciate their efforts.. face it they are geniuses.. You are able to live with this kind of technology, live like now is indirectly from them!

    • DC / Sep 9 2013 3:01 pm

      I’m an artist and industrial designer and work for an automotive company as the designer and finished a car at the age of 24 & currently designing a motorcycle at 25, its honestly a mental puzzle balancing aesthetics and practicality or feasibility to be made, while considering budgets and communication with others. I am fairly intelligent academically with honours for 3 years out of 4 and highest achievement awards in several classes during high school and excelled in university as an art student, since I wanted to pursue my natural ability. I won’t go as far as to say or brag that I’m a genius, but a lot of IQ questions are stupid and sometimes based on cultural references/useless knowledge never to be utilized in the real world. A lot of people can be smart academically, but to be multi-talented and to convey senses such as visuals as a communication medium is incredibly special, since its going beyond what you know exist (which engineers tend to fail at), while a good designer predicts the future trends and makes things work with form and function in mind. Steve Jobs wouldn’t be considered by some as a genius or anywhere without a product or idea. He was always trying to make his products minimal and user friendly (sometimes not) like the Mac one click mouse. He was a businessman, who understood artists’ wants and got high to try new things that would blow his mind to think in new ways as a young inventor. But nothing would exist properly if you think da Vinci’s art and design is discredited as being genius, even if some of his work was trial and error. If you keep trying to make your ideas succeed, even after countless failed attempts – but seeking new approaches/methods (similar to a scientific hypothesis/discovery) and eventually figure out the solution, then that good idea its golden and a platform to build off of for the future. You might not like to think of it or agree with me, but Leonardo da Vinci was a true genius as the first industrial designer that inspired so many inventions in his wake, even military inventions and was one of the first to draw through objects and the anatomy of dead people, as they were rotting since their bodies couldn’t be chilled (also look for the fetus sketchbook work). If that isn’t remarkable then you have no clue what is, since that thought process back in the day inspired doctors to understand our insides and 4D baby monitoring that is now considered a new and ingenious invention. The screw is one of the most important inventions since almost everything needs it to be constructed from your IKEA table, house and computer.

      Anyways, a side note: I totally agree that Steven Hawking is overrated and praised to know all secrets of the universe. Thats being naive to rely on this guy, as a lot of people are sheep to latch on to those smarter than them or give off the impression of being intelligent and sophisticated.

  260. lame / Jul 8 2013 2:17 am

    This guy is just unhappy that his favourite geniuses werent as publicized as the above people. Let me clarify someth. First of all Bill Gates is considered a business genius. So it’s unfair to compare him with engineering and science geniuses. Second, just because you took the theory and discoveries made by others and improve and expand on them don’t make you overrated. If thats the case then every genius is overrated because they were educated in school before and guess what, they are absorbing the ideas and theories made by their predecessors and continue to expand and improve on them

  261. Louis / Jul 7 2013 6:26 pm

    I agree with much of the information in this post.

    However, there is no need to condescend these men simply because a pack of idiots put them on a pedestal.

  262. jack bouse / Jul 7 2013 4:07 am

    werent the nazi scientists really smart? i dont know, i saw a show on the nazis and their propuslion jets (i have no clue wtf imtalking about btw, i fell asleep like halfway thru the show). then it said the USA took the Nazi Scientists(after they lost ofc) and made the whole NASA thang with them, and they helped us make the Apollo Rockets? dont call me stupid lol

  263. PFFFT / Jul 6 2013 2:33 pm

    What an obviously biased thread . For e.g. Leornado wasnt considered a genius because of his paintings/inventions/designs or whatnot. he was considered a genius because he was considered by many the most diversely talented person to ever exist. he was a genius polymath. He was a painter, sculptor, architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, and writer. You say many of his designs/inventions were impractical. well duh, he imagined the future 500 years later obviously there will be inconsistencies and inaccuracies. But the important point is him being one of the few (maybe the only one) to imagine what engineering technology is going to be like in the far future and conceptually draw out the designs for future studies. in fact he heralded the era of engineering mechanics. his tensile strength test was of utmost significance in engineering. He was the one who started linking art with science with his anatomy works and of course his most famous drawing, the Virtruvian Man. He greatly advanced the state of knowledge in the fields of anatomy, astronomy, civil engineering, optics and hydrodynamics.

    So the question now is, should people only be considered “genius” only when they make unparalleled contributions or theorized/invented something before another being of equal/greater intellect? Are you overrated because your inventions dont work out as expected even when you lived at a age where animal intestines and cloths were being used as condoms?

    The fact is the term genius is used in many ways. In the case of Da Vin Ci, he is called a Universal Genius (Polymath), same with Tesla. Benjamin Franklin was a polymath as well. People like Einstein and Newton who were experts in a single subject are purely just called geniuses. So there you have it, very biased article because the people listed above were considered overrated just because they discovered something later than others or because their inventions were impratical or because your discoveries seem less important and easy than another’s.

  264. J@J.com / Jul 6 2013 9:33 am

    “I don’t know why anyone would consider Bill Gates to be a genius, it’s a mystery to me.”

    Because HE GENERATED $67 BILLION DOLLARS that’s why!

  265. Werner Heisenberg / Jul 5 2013 10:12 am

    It’s incredible how poorly educated about Einstein most commentators on here are. One would assume that, given his popularity, the masses would take it upon themselves to read Einstein’s definitive biography by Walter Isaacson essentially refuting the myth that Einstein was bad at math/ On the contrary, he EXCELLED at math. In fact, according to original manuscripts from the Zurich Polytechnique Institute and earlier accounts, Einstein MASTERED multi-variable calculus by the age of 13. Let me repeat that for the illiterates on this blog, Einstein MASTERED multi-variable calculus by the time he was 13. Moreover, General Relativity, merely one of Einstein’s MANY accomplishments –also including Special Relativity, Bose-Einstein Condensation, proving and calculating the size of atoms (brownian motion), the photoelectric effect, just to name a few–requires non-euclidean geometry. This is PURE mathematics: Riemann tensors, advanced 4-d topology, all woven within the superstructure of a theory of gravity that most physicists agree is the greatest conception of the human mind. Einstein overrated? Psssh, There’s only scientist that might be ranked above him, Newtown, and his great mathematical discovery was actually invented slightly earlier by a philosopher named Leibniz (calculus).

    Sit down before you chat nonsense.

    • clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right / Nov 17 2013 1:49 am

      This is false. Leibniz discovered the calculus independently, but Newton did it first. Newton did not publish it for many years, but there is no doubt that he had formulated his own version of the calculus about 10 year before Leibniz.

      Be a bit more careful when you accuse someone else of writing nonsense that you have not committed the same offense yourself.

  266. Dr. Leslie Nelson / Jul 4 2013 10:56 am

    I agree with some of the names on your list; I think it is quite clear that the term “genius” is often misused. Albert Einstein I would consider, without question, a genius. While it is true that Special Relativity (SR) was very much “in the air” in the early years of the 20th century and maybe four or five other theorists would have soon published a theory similar to SR, I truly believe, along with many other physicists, that General Relativity was a contribution to knowledge on another level. Einstein was not a great mathematician but he was not a bad one either and along with his great gift of intuition (a quality shared by Feynman and some notable others) he was able to provide a theory that, at the time, was remarkably advanced. Incidently, the research papers that earned him the Nobel Prize are remarkable and would justify the term “genius”.

  267. Dr. Leslie Nelson / Jul 4 2013 10:43 am

    I agree with some of the names on this list but the comments regarding Einstein are misplaced.

  268. Anonymous / Jul 2 2013 9:41 am

    And out of his mouth comes a torrent of utter literal stupidity.

  269. iq == 169 / Jul 1 2013 4:28 pm

    Not impressed at all, but the troll got us to comment so its a kinda win.

  270. Go / Jun 30 2013 9:13 pm

    The guy, I mean “IDIOT” who wrote this list is just a completely jealous moron.WHAT HAVE YOU CONTRIBUTED TO THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD BESIDES YOUR IDIOCY???

    • Anonymous / Jul 2 2013 9:47 am

      Mr author, the biggest problem with your article is not how stupid it is or how lacking in unbiased truth it is, but how incredibly moronically, ignorantly stupid you are. Thank you for your time.

  271. ihateyou / Jun 27 2013 6:12 am

    Einstein is considered as the greatest physicist or genious not only by the the common people but by great mathematicians and physicists. You are a big loser man. No one said bill gates invented computer, he invented windows, if you think the building windows from scratch is not a big thing then why dont you create a new operating system :p

  272. top eleven hack token / Jun 26 2013 7:22 am

    This piece of writing will assist the internet people for building up new weblog or even a
    weblog from start to end.

    • Anonymous / Jul 2 2013 9:39 am

      and lower the average intelligence 300%

      yay!

  273. anonymus / Jun 23 2013 7:16 am

    you sir, are fucking stupid

  274. Anon / Jun 18 2013 3:05 pm

    I actually find this quite amusing myself, it’s a classic way of persuading people with very little prior knowledge of the topic by giving very little information and using it as an example as to why it is wrong. Assuming, of course, that is what the author is doing. I mean maybe that is truly all he knows about these men! Of course there are some things I agreed with, the reality Thomas Edison got any credit was basically because Nikola Tesla was at first his understudy. That and Nikola Tesla was much too far ahead of his time leaving him broke on the day he passed, very sad one of the smartest men to walk this Earth contributed a lot to this society and died nearly penniless. If this tells you anything Thomas Edison invented the electric chair for the sole reason to destroy AC’s reputation. Just think of a world with nothing but DC? Electrician would definitely have a more difficult job that is for sure. But there is much irony in this. The fact that he is discrediting Da Vinci as being a genius and then trying to help his own case with something Da Vinci said is just comical. Really if you are so angry about whenever people build off of another’s idea you should be mad at every inventor for in a sense building off the wheel, because that ancient man deserves all of the credit. But you complain about the media, if you are that upset with the media for not giving the whole story get used to it, because it is what is contributing majorly to all the negatives about society. You also have to look at how some of these geniuses were ahead of there time, looking foward a few hundred years I would say we will all look pretty stupid. But it was there contributions and ideas and how far into the future it was that hails them of being a great thinker. I can understand Bill Gates and Thomas Edison to the degree they were great thinkers but also very good business men. They did not originate all of their ideas. I cannot, however, take that off of your hands for Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking, becuase even if they did not contribute greatly to the world of science that is not so much their role as they are good at eduacating people, which in the end is the goal anyways right? It’s like getting mad at your teacher for telling the Gettysburg Address because Abraham Lincoln himself did not give it to you. I understand you want the people who should be credited to get the respect they deserve but most of these men are very humble I am sure or else they would have had it known anyways. On top of that it is usually the person who perfects something that gets the credit. I’m not sure if you know much about guns but it’s kind of like how there is a caliber called the 30-6, now a company called Winchester perfected a version of this caliber so if you buy that type of bullet it will say 30-6 WIN because they get the credit regardless of who makes the round. It doesn’t matter who started the idea of the caliber or who ended up using it, it is who perfects it that gets to stamp their name on it. And that is the way it is with a lot of the world. It seems like this list is based off of a cold cut, black and white perspective of how a genius should be when in the reality of it it is much more complex and you must look at the aspects of the way they have contributed to the science society, only then may you find it may be a bigger role than what you had thought.

  275. film xxx en streming / Jun 17 2013 7:22 am

    F*ckin tremendous things here. Im very glad to see your
    post. Thanks a lot and i am looking forward to contact you.

    Will you please drop me a e-mail?

  276. siggi / Jun 14 2013 7:21 pm

    this is bullshit, you are just jealous.

  277. Anonymous / Jun 14 2013 2:40 pm

    this is rubbish leonardo da vinci was still pretty smart but one of archemedes best inventions was already being used in plays before he transferred it to war.

  278. Ed / Jun 14 2013 2:12 pm

    I don’t know much about the other people on your list. I know Einstein is not overrated though. Math is no fucking fun to do. That’s why he wasn’t good at math. There is a difference between laziness and mental ability. People like the author are so confused about how the world works all the time.

  279. Anonymous / Jun 13 2013 6:32 am

    What a load of guff.

  280. Anonymous / Jun 10 2013 1:37 pm

    The reality of genius is being part of a community with other great minds and sharing/building your ideas off what other people have come up with. So there’s nothing wrong with perfecting something someone else has done/already thought of.

    Another point is that the most successful people have failed many, many times before they succeeded. Failure is just part of the process for anybody. Having a super high iq wouldn’t necessarily protect you from failure.

    There are other’s not mentioned in the comments section such as Leibniz (iq 205), he independently discovered calculus and was considered to have a higher iq than Newton (iq 190). Also nobody mentioned goethe (iq 210) a hailed universal genius. There are many others not mentioned such as Emanuel Kant, Emanuel Swedenborg, Francis Galton.

    Perhaps the Geniuses mentioned on the list are a bit “overrated” but they are some of the greatest in human history. Just learn to watch what you say and make sure you’re not attacking them because that’s what inspires anger in others. Everyone knows that Einstein was a poor mathematician but in the end genius is all about originality, creativity, and the final product not so much about how you arrived there. So the people who attack Einstein because of his poor mathematical ability are being rather petty!!!

  281. necax / Jun 9 2013 7:07 pm

    There is something very important that you’re forgetting about the DaVinci. Even though his inventions did not work, all bases were correct and allowed others (some cases only 500 years later) to perfected them, as the case of the helicopter and the human proportions. If you still care to see that the church still persecuted men of science and all social barriers that had in the fifteenth and sixteenth century, you are actually dealing with a genial man as ever existed in the world. Not for being the best but because it was the one that opened more doors for modern science. I know that technically, Newton or Copernicus were better. But they didn’t open the doors of science (and art) as DaVinci.

    Pardom my english but it’s not my main language

  282. Anonymous / Jun 8 2013 4:51 am

    When someone else as bored as you compiles a list of the dumbest and most ignorant people who have lived, i’m certain you will place first.

    • itsnobody / Jun 9 2013 8:19 am

      I’m certain that throwing personal attacks at me refutes nothing that I’ve said, which is something that lots of people don’t get.

      In the future once free speech is gone, I’m certain that won’t happen, even if I end up to be a world-changing figure.

      I’ll release a Top 10 list of underrated geniuses or a Top 10 list of just the best geniuses soon…

      • Anon / Jun 18 2013 2:38 pm

        It’s funny how you comment on the person with the poorest argument and is only attacking you personally whenever plenty of people have refuted your points and no comment is found. Well I guess you have to pick your battles, though preying on the weak-minded will make you no smarter.

      • Anonymous / Jul 2 2013 9:35 am

        When you try to design something 100 years ahead of it’s time, and actually do and prove your IQ is above 80 (equal to some gorillas) come back to this article and see if you still think Leonardo da Vinci is an idiot.

        if so, you sir, are as dumb as a rock

    • Anonymous / Jun 15 2013 4:29 pm

      Exactly this kid hopefully is trolling because this is probably the biggest bullshit article I have EVER READ

  283. Anonymous / Jun 7 2013 6:36 am

    Has the writer ever read about the biography of the individuals before making the articles? Leonardo da Vinci was a painter, sculptor, architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, and writer. His works were well-known and established in each field. How many humans in history have achieved that? Try to draw some paintings and see how many people will pay for it. How about inventing something that will become useful? How about mastering 12 fields with significant accomplishments? Leonardo da Vinci is the genius of all time. Anyone can master a field and become a genius in that field, but to master more than 10 fields that is a whole new level.

  284. Anonymous / Jun 3 2013 12:55 am

    The rankings are based upon how overrated the “geniuses” starting from the lesser overrated geniuses ending with the most overrated genius.

    Needs the word “are” after geniuses or the sentence makes no sense. You could change geniuses to genius and that would work also.

  285. Anonymous / May 30 2013 8:39 am

    Leonardo da Vinci illustrates with the correct perspective, he even masteres human proportions… Are you sure that the people built his inventions in an exact way his mind is thinking? Maybe he has a technique on building his own inventions… We don’t know what he is really thinking… But still, he knows how to illustrate with the correct perspective….

  286. Anonymous / May 30 2013 12:08 am

    Good list. The arguments, clarified by further comments in this section, are impeccable. Just to emphasize the later comments: (1) IQ doesn’t matter significantly, as you clarified. (2) Einstein was a genius par excellence, but so were other physicists who don’t get the same exposure.

    Without a doubt the most ingenious human, in the scientific realm, is Newton. Often I wonder how past scientists would fare today, but I typically conclude that science would be the same – save for one scientist: Newton. I truly wonder what impact he would make if he was here today…

    • Anonymous / Jun 14 2013 12:03 am

      Past scientists, in one regard, had it much easier. (In another, much harder, obviously.)
      I remember my old Organic Chemistry professor having a chat with me over a smoke outside the building one day. He told me that one of his Physical Chemistry end of 1st year questions was derive Schrodinger’s equation. He was asked the exact same question in his finals. Modern science degrees can’t do that: the body of knowledge modern scientists need to assimilate before they can be even remotely useful at the cutting edge is absolutley mind blowing now.

      I still think Newton would cut it somehow. I would personally advance Turing as the greatest blue sky thinker of all time though, with Newton at #2. Cracking Enigma, deriving the mathematical rules governing computing, and sussing out morphogenesis…

      If we want to get into “Ignored by the media” upper echelon genii, how about Linus Pauling? Easily the greatest Chemist of the 20th Century.

  287. ben / May 26 2013 10:47 pm

    I don’t agree with everyone on your list, but I agree that Dr. Kaku is overrated. He works at CCNY which has had nine Nobel Laureates but isn’t even close to ranking in with colleges like Stanford. If he was such a brilliant professor, a more prestigious college would have offered him a professorship. He is famous because he makes science easy to understand which isn’t a bad thing, but it doesn’t make him a genius. It just makes him a great communicator and entertainer. My friends who attended Irvine and became engineers don’t really think much of him.

    • Anonymous / Jun 6 2013 6:15 am

      Kaku may be overrated, but your arguments that he is are rather petty and silly.

      By your reasoning, every professor at a more prestigious college should be more brilliant than he is.

      You also contradict yourself by saying or asking “If he was such a brilliant professor…” and then saying “He is famous because he makes science easy to understand.” That sort of is the definition of understanding and brilliants in the subject.

      Also, it’s really a leap in conclusion to make judgement of a persons brilliants based on where they work. There could be so many reasons for why he is at CUNY – like perhaps he wants to live in New York… or maybe they offered him something he couldn’t refuse.

      “Kaku graduated summa cum laude at Harvard University in 1968 and was first in his physics class. He attended the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley and received a Ph.D. in 1972″ – Wikipedia

      I think that makes what your “engineer” friends “think” about him is sort of irrelevant and I don’t even know why you would need their opinions of him for you to make up your mind.

  288. p. / May 25 2013 10:42 am

    Why are you so obsessed with IQ-tests? They aren’t empiric at all.

  289. Anonymous / May 19 2013 3:46 pm

    How would you define genius?

  290. Anonymous / May 19 2013 2:43 pm

    Dude Nikola ATesla was better than Thomas Edison O.o

    • pablo / May 20 2013 12:43 am

      I agree

  291. radio control / May 11 2013 8:30 pm

    Greetings from Colorado! I’m bored to death at work so I decided to browse your blog on my iphone during lunch break. I enjoy the info you present here and can’t
    wait to take a look when I get home. I’m amazed at how fast your blog loaded on my cell phone .. I’m
    not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyways, fantastic blog!

  292. Anonymous / May 11 2013 10:04 am

    I think despite the claims you have made, he was still knew an incredible amount of breadth in such a wide array of topic areas, plus he was very original, he saw the world with a different vision, id say his IQ would have to be at least 150+ and 200 is not too generous. There’s not many people in the world today who could simultaneously study art and law and at the same time be a painter and inventor, Da Vinci was exceptional and there is no doubt about that.

  293. Hüseyin / May 11 2013 5:30 am

    You know nothing about da vinci. He could use his brain 100 times than you. He is a great genius.

  294. AAK / May 10 2013 9:17 am

    You yourself is overrated person!

  295. Anonymous / May 8 2013 6:26 pm

    You said ” ignored by the media” so many time that i believe it ma stem from a personal realization. Also, who are you to judge which geniuses are or aren’t overrated when you obviously have no existing genius qualities. You, sir, are just an average poser who is trying to be smart using false clams. In my opinion the only overrated thing here is you.

    • TK / May 9 2013 5:53 pm

      In truth, the author of this list is an underrated genius. In truth, he is ignored by the media. In truth, he is a literary genius who uses a variety of phrases to drive his points home. In truth, Da Vinci really was just a stupid seventh grader who was bored in a geography lesson and ended up sketching the basis for several of the most important inventions used today. In truth, “Da Vinci himself said “Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.” The irony in this statement strikes me as very amusing. In truth, this whole comment was another overrated statement from the media against the true genius that is… (what do 10 year olds like? Oh yeah…) socks.

      Since it’s highly likely that a 5th grader posted this, I feel obliged to tell you (as an older 8th grader myself) that that was sarcasm. Please, do mention if this post was sarcastic or serious (and if serious, were you sober when you posted it?) You can’t honestly be saying that the ten people on that list haven’t contributed much to science. For god’s sake, Einstein came up with relativity! Michio Kaku is making science accessible to people with a pocket of pennies and a curious mind (enter moi) everywhere! Da Vinci… who do you think gave us the basis for the aeroplane? The tank? The machine gun?
      Hawking’s a proven mathematical genius. And James Watson was pushing it. Just a simple observation? The next time you see a person who survived a genetic disorder living their life happily, remember that man, James Watson and his partner, Francis Crick, remember the men who’s work they used and then think about what they observed and what it has done for humanity.

      Yes, humankind has had more geniuses than we could ever count or compile into a list, but the ten men on this particular list aren’t overrated. They are some of the finest humanity has to offer.

      • Anonymous / Jun 1 2013 9:36 pm

        You sir, just made my day.

      • Salil / Aug 6 2013 2:53 pm

        Fantastic response

  296. Johnw1104 / May 4 2013 9:07 pm

    Am I the only one who felt like he was reading a 5th grader’s homework assignment? Lord, I’ve never seen one word repeated so many times… May I never hear the phrase “ignored by the media” again.

    The only one I agreed with was Pythagoras, and even there you seemed to be relying on assumption and common perception rather than proper research.

    Forgive me, but I was expecting a little more from an author who deemed himself worthy of belittling the intellects and contributions of some of history’s greatest minds.

  297. Anonymous / May 4 2013 7:54 pm

    クソバカヤロー!!

  298. Anonymous / Apr 29 2013 8:00 pm

    Considering that half of your arguments for non-genius are that their achievements were independently rediscovered or non-original, how about Newton’s seminal achievement being independently (and much more cleanly) stated IN HIS OWN DAY by Leibniz?

    Not to mention the man believed that alchemy was possible,

    I still consider Newton to be a genius though; if you do as well, then most of your arguments against people on this list are void.

  299. Anonymous / Apr 26 2013 4:54 pm

    Obviously the author of this is just trying to make profite by using the names of popular persons doing rediculous and provovating statements.

    The best thing to do would be to just ignore this stinking bullshit and just don’t react on it anymore by adding no more futher comments.

    Unfortunatally this will probably not happend as one can see by my comment (shit again).

  300. Anonymous / Apr 26 2013 10:54 am

    Shoot yourself, einstein overrated? Physics as we know it is much based on Albert Einsteins equations. Where do you even get this from ?

  301. Bullshit / Apr 26 2013 1:04 am

    the genius of human kind is isaac newton

    his mathematics still useful even 400 years after. Not even einstein or da vinci can be matched with him.

    • Anon / May 3 2013 8:09 pm

      soo ignorant. Attacking brilliant people as idiots because we admire their achievements. And theres nothing wrong with drawing from other peoples ideas? As newton said “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

  302. JK / Apr 25 2013 9:29 pm

    All of these people have achieved something great, which might not make them genius per say, but it sure does make them something. Even if Da Vinci’s inventions failed when tested, the concepts that had to be grasped in order to even think of such ideas in his time would absolutely make him a genius, if nothing else. Clearly, you’re just an ignorant snob that’s just jealous of these people’s achievements because you’ve never accomplished anything even close to comparing with these great minds.

    • Walking toad / May 6 2013 2:48 pm

      Couldn’t have put it in better words myself.

    • WTFFTW / May 30 2013 7:28 pm

      I know Right? I mean, damn, Leonardo couldn’t couldn’t get his inventions to work half the time, but look at the time he was in! The fact that he could draw the stuff he did was amazing, let alone build a working version of it… I mean, armored tanks, machine guns and diving suits, lets see you guys go back to the 1500′s and make a machine gun, He is a genius in his own right and you are a lowlife who thinks its cool to dispute real genius.

  303. Anonymous / Apr 24 2013 8:50 pm

    Da Vinci is the greatest mind in history. I would want to point out that other genius’s agree with me. You’re a annoying brat that thinks that if you point out flaws in other people you will be smarter than them. My 8 year old brother is smarter than you. All of the genius’s on this list made contributions to history. Some of them even helped make this computer you are typing on.

    • [citation needed] / Apr 26 2013 12:47 pm

      Who were the geniuses who said that and on what merit?

    • Anonymous / Jun 1 2013 1:46 pm

      i agree leonardo da vinci is the greatest mind in history. i think that you are just stupid and in order to make yourself feel better you insult others.

  304. Anonymous / Apr 22 2013 10:01 pm

    Ignorance is bliss, it seems. You are a blind, and foolish. Open your eyes, child. Clarity and an open mind will turn a child into a man. Maybe then, we shall debate, for I do not argue with children, the same way I will not tolerate a blind man insulting the genius of those who he cannot see.

  305. vvasss / Apr 22 2013 4:51 pm

    you suck!

  306. Anonymous / Apr 22 2013 2:49 am

    This guy is really stupid

  307. Sean / Apr 22 2013 12:18 am

    A list compiled, obviously, by someone who would not compose a pimple on the backside of any of these men.

  308. Anonymous / Apr 21 2013 2:34 pm

    You’re a complete idiot! Einstein was a great mathematician! You fucking tool. Doy uo even study maths you retard?

    • Me? / Apr 26 2013 1:00 am

      einstein did not contribuited in mathematics

      • kd / Apr 29 2013 3:33 pm

        well,as for Einstein he is overrated..but that is justified…but I agree on the other point..about neglecting other equally great minds like Euler,Gauss of past and misha Gromov,ed witten of our time.

  309. Anonymous / Apr 21 2013 12:33 pm

    One thing is for sure, I cannot overrate the stupidity of this list.

  310. Amadeus / Apr 18 2013 12:29 pm

    lol this blog is so wrong are you saying that weinberg invented the electroweak theory, HELL NO it was abdus salam and edward witten probably is wrong since there’s no evidence for strings in nature.

    The rank is Newton > Schrodinger > Heisenberg > Dirac and Einstein by numbers of scientific constribuitions.

  311. kuhloysqnrfc / Apr 16 2013 12:14 pm

    jlduqcsdrjue

  312. Ralph / Apr 16 2013 5:05 am

    You are ignorant. IQ is based on percentage. To have an IQ of 100 would mean that you were 100% as smart as the average human so an IQ of 200+ is 100% possible. to have an IQ of 200 just means that you are 200% as smart as the average person. Please do not make any other web pages displaying your “knowledge.” You have sufficiently shown that you do not know what you are talking about and infecting the world with your ignorance is tantamount to illegal activity.

    • Anonymous / Apr 18 2013 8:31 am

      That is not how bell curves work.

      • Anonymous / Apr 18 2013 7:06 pm

        Bell curves are absolutely based on percentages. Area under the curve = 1 or 100% That said the IQ scale is not based on a bell curve. You can take the results and use a bell curve to determine how a result compares with others.

    • Anonymous / Jul 9 2013 3:04 am

      Barring the fact that IQ is mostly irrelevant (too many definitions and measures), this comment is extremely retarded. IQ of 200 is not 2 times as smart as the person with 100.

      First, why IQ is irrelevant: you would need a test that is capable of assigning points to such a discriminating degree that it separates average people from very smart from geniuses from once in a generation geniuses of geniuses. In other words, even if we had said utopic test, what this test’s results mean (score relative to other’s scores) is ONLY that let’s say 0.000000001% of the population is capable of answering most of the questions. Said questions could be about obscure specific knowledge, could be about having luck in choosing a correct answer, could involve mindless calculations over an extremely long period of time… and we are ignoring all external factors like cohort (extremely important for comparing historically).

      Second, IQ scores are NOT linear: Now, supposing we had an uberutopic test that placed scores for geniuses, lets say da vinci got 300, einstein 200, and you 100, it DOES NOT mean that da vinci is 3 times smarter that you or that einstein is twice as smart as you. IQ tests are based on a gaussian distribution with a mean of 100 and standard deviation, lets say for the arguments sake of 15. What this means is that a person with an IQ of 115 is one standard deviation above you (100 means you score above 50% of the population, 115 means above ~68% of the population, 130 means above ~95% of the population, 145 above ~99.7% of the population). In other words, if we assigned scores based on the rank people get from the test, 130 IQ would mean many times smarter than 100. The same can be said of 145: it is many times smarter than 130. This means each extra IQ point scales exponentially.

      TLDR: Dont flatter yourself: you are not half as smart as einstein (luckily for the world’s sake)

  313. Anonymous / Apr 12 2013 11:52 pm

    da vinci is still one of the top ten geniuses, regardless of his iq, which was likely lower than people think. I would estimate 145-160. thomas edison was also one of the top ten. they are both overrated, that is true, but lets not underrate them like how your article does, just because they are overrated. albert einstein was not a genius at all. in order to be a genius you have to generate, there has to be genesis. albert einstein made a bunch of theories and one lame law that doesnt do anything. Issaac Newton created fundamental rules that are productive and true, and still hold today, among a league of other accomplishments. He was a real genius.

    Bill Gates and Stephen hawking are not geniuses at all, and are extremely overrated, so that you got correct.

    6/10

    • John Eldrick / Apr 17 2013 9:39 am

      You are among the prime examples of infinite stupidity Einstein spoke of.
      Those “lame laws and theories” are one out of two pillars of modern science, while the foundations of the other one are largely Einstein’s doing as well. Furthermore, the most profound implication of quantum mechanics (non-locality) is idea of Einstein, Rosen and Podolsky.
      Even comparing Da Vinchi, an artist/polymath with wide range of interests and ambitions but ultimately no revolutionary success in any of scientific fields he was involved with, with geniuses like Einstein who singlehandedly reconstructed our entire understanding of reality is the absolute blasphemy.
      This is not a matter of opinion, it’s an objective consideration of facts.

      • John Eldrick / Apr 17 2013 10:08 am

        *Da Vinci

  314. Ab / Apr 11 2013 3:30 am

    I like that you belive in Charles Darwin’s geniuse!

  315. Cialis for order / Apr 10 2013 12:07 am

    fdgxkjutopcpez, Viagra, Qmfzbxf, [url=http://www.viagra911.com/]Viagra for women[/url], yIspuRr, http://www.viagra911.com/ Viagra for women, fzNveVJ, Warning generic tadalafil, mLaObTs, [url=http://www.tadalafilrxpill.com/]Zenegra tadalafil vs sildenafil citrate[/url], AuRYVJR, http://www.tadalafilrxpill.com/ Www tadalafil softtabs com, zUtmtPe, The Host Monster, ZFoYTxG, [url=http://doresearchandearnmoneyfromhome.com/hostmonster/]The host cgi monster effects[/url], nuXJHpr, http://doresearchandearnmoneyfromhome.com/hostmonster/ Host monster photography, dgUGFhx, Dapoxetine, AylcWtI, [url=http://www.dapoxetineonlinebuy.com/]Dapoxetine reviews[/url], ZomIkex, http://www.dapoxetineonlinebuy.com/ Dapoxetine europe, cAgyadx, Reverse Phone Lookup, SiHERAw, [url=http://reverselookupservice.com/]Reverse Phone[/url], zsjiWtM, http://reverselookupservice.com/ Free reverse phone number search reports, EocXauM, Cialis hearing loss, loRALGb, [url=http://www.personalcialisblog.com/]Daily cialis pill[/url], kTzwqOp, http://www.personalcialisblog.com/ Cialis, OvLyRVd.

  316. Europe online sale viagra / Apr 9 2013 11:47 pm

    ciczbjutopcpez, Free viagra sample, zVkwUDV, [url=http://www.dworkincompany.com/]Viagra[/url], HvqNLQd, http://www.dworkincompany.com/ Cialis vs viagra, zRyEDbA, Vigrx plus avis, LRUACds, [url=http://oa-ahdi.org/]VigRX[/url], cfZAavA, http://oa-ahdi.org/ Vigrx results, QOdRAiD, Viagra uk cheap purchase buy, rLCFeoU, [url=http://viagrainuk247.com/]Jamaica blog negril sex viagra[/url], ETxtrtU, http://viagrainuk247.com/ Viagra online shop in uk, HPDVbDJ, Vigrx scam, ltNmrqn, [url=http://rinitis.org/]Vigrx side effects[/url], SDkyZkH, http://rinitis.org/ VigRX, znujPJP, Provigil for depression, MSywoxQ, [url=http://www.modafinilbuy2013.com/]Provigil vs nuvigil[/url], ZDhOurN, http://www.modafinilbuy2013.com/ Does provigil interact with diflucan, iPphirE, Xanax dosage, EcpxBMF, [url=http://relaxationhelp.com/how-does-xanax-work-its-wonders_204]Cheap generic xanax[/url], lTfzLgN, http://relaxationhelp.com/how-does-xanax-work-its-wonders_204 xanax, AVwDbgK.

  317. mario / Apr 5 2013 8:19 pm

    que nos deja de conclucion este trabajo, sencillo no se necesita tener un gran IQ para destacar en un ámbito como la ciencia, simplemente la pasión por encontrar una respuesta, que al final de del dia sera mas importante que un numero ( el cual esta de igual forma sobre valorado ) no nos interesa el ser reconocidos como grandes genios si no como personas que por su curiosidad buscaron una respuesta :)

  318. Anonymous / Apr 4 2013 10:42 pm

    Well I believe you’ve done an adequate job here itsnobody, the rather obvious true intended purpose of this article was not to supply an objective overview of the actual prowess of the public’s perception of history’s genius, nor to supply a subjective one, nor even to spark up a spirited scientific debate (you’ve done an adequate job of thwarting that too). The real ( and far more juvenile) purpose of this article was in fact to draw attention to yourself, to showcase what you perceive to be your superior intellect, and to attract a crowd who would perhaps be inflamed enough to listen to your drivel. In that respect I would like to congratulate you, your ‘brilliant’ scheme worked, perhaps the ruckus you have drummed up would be sufficient to quell what must be an exceptionally juvenile, insecure, and overall hugely inflamed ego. My only regret is that by posting this I play right into your hands, i would suggest that you move on, and instead express your intellect in a more reputable, respectable, and honorable manner, but I doubt you will listen. I hope you find this EXCEEDINGLY ad hominem. Thanks for the read. :)

  319. Anonymous / Apr 4 2013 9:44 pm

    I find it interesting that the author didn’t bother to mention the fact that Thomas Edison stole the design (and patent) for the copper filaments in “his” light bulbs from his assistant, Lewis Latimer

  320. BoB / Apr 3 2013 8:57 am

    Yet, all of them are smarter than you, little man.

  321. gaia / Apr 2 2013 7:23 pm

    Hey…if your gonna attack Michio Kaku you’ve gotta attack Brian Cox (he is the British equivalent)….although they are great presenters….

  322. anonymous / Apr 2 2013 9:24 am

    Of course, Bill gates is no scientist. He is not shown in the media as having been one,rather he is famous for managerial skills. But regarding hawking and feynman i do agree with you. They are/were geniuses and first rate scientists but certainly not the greatest of their generation as being broadcasted by the media. Kaku is not even a first rate scientist. AGREED. Don’t know about edison, but yeah IQ does not define genius so agreed about sidis too. Butt einstein HELL no. He is one of the greatest scientists to have been ever born on earth. That mistake of yours clearly indicates you are a high school kid. Pythagoras again was a genius as was leonardo da vinci. And franklin as well as watson have also been credited with great discoveries. A layman wouldn’t even have come close.

  323. Marchcool / Apr 2 2013 4:37 am

    Clearly the person who wrote this article has a very little knowledge about physics or science. Physicists for instance, don’t deny the genius in Weinberg or Witten. It’s rather the writer of this pitiful “article” who does it.
    Saying that Einstein was not original and implying that Weinberg or Witten are even more, is a thing that only a person with a two-digit IQ would say.

  324. Sandrow / Apr 1 2013 11:32 pm

    Well I honestly agree to most degree, whoever wrote this was actually quite informed.

  325. Adelio Noriega / Apr 1 2013 3:27 pm

    Calling any of these men on the list overrated is a bit crappy. These men are considered geniuses not for the literal sense of intelligence but rather for the legacy they left behind,legacies that have changed man kind.Few people can do that,if you don’t believe me, trying changing the world through their fields the way they did,see if you can.

  326. et / Apr 1 2013 6:13 am

    I AM NOT GONNA LEAVE A COMMENT I WILL RIGHT MY OWN THEORY: EVERYTHING IS GOOD FOR A REASON

  327. Anonymous / Mar 30 2013 6:45 pm

    I would like you to try and think of the universe and express yourself while your are in an electrically moving chair and you can barely move your fingers.
    Then you will understand how “overestimated Hawking is…..and for christ sake a man who cannot move has proved that black holes exist(in physics).And i think that his IQ is about 160 which makes him a genious…

  328. John Eldrick / Mar 30 2013 12:50 pm

    Labeling Da Vinci as the “greatest genius in history” is idiocy on all possible levels, especially in regards to his blatantly made up IQ of 200+. That much I can agree on.
    However, In terms of the overall contribution to science, Einstein, Tesla and Newton indisputably reign at the very top as the Greatest Geniuses.
    When it comes to IQ on the other hand, Kim Ung-yong is the all-time record holder.

  329. Anonymous / Mar 29 2013 8:35 pm

    Einstein overrated?!????? Many of the others i agree with you. But not stephen hawking not Einstein, specially Einstein, you cannot be serious there.

  330. Nyaneshvar / Mar 28 2013 4:03 am

    TO be honest , i understand the lack of evidence about Sidis (the press etc) Precocious is different from genius, wheras there is a correlation.

    Sidis works werent understood by his peers at the moment and like a vicious circle he decided to abondon sciences. It was also reported that his mind was so powerful that even him couldn contorl himself and stop him of thinking (he was a chain worker)

  331. Steve / Mar 27 2013 7:55 am

    So much negativity to this but it is so true.
    Can someone tell me what great invention Da Vinci created that contributed to the World and set off the Industrial Revolution?I have looked at Da Vinci’s work and all he has is unworkable contraptions.He was a good painter but that is just a skill nothing to do with originality or the discovery of unknown secrets.Einstein never invented anything and his ideas are the work of his wife who was a brillant mathematician who was unable to sign as her work due to how women were treated in those times.
    I agree with this list but idiots are obviously brainwashed who think remembering or having some kind of skill is genius.
    Genius is someone who can problem solve ,who has knowledge about many things and who can use that knowledge to create something original that is not of this world.
    To me someone like Nikola Tesla is a pure genius because no matter what modern gadget you pick up you can be sure that a part of Tesla is in there somewhere.

    • Anonymous / Jul 25 2013 8:06 am

      Boil your head. Please. I love that you define painting as just a skill. “Just a skill.” Ponder that phrase. Then when realisation dawns, boil your head.

  332. steve / Mar 25 2013 5:14 am

    you can’t tell someone they’re not a smart person for not having a high IQ, you couldfind some kid who remembers hundred of formulas and gets 100% on their tests but that doesn’t mean they’ll be able to problem solve, it’d be like asking a computer a problem that hasn’t got a solution yet, although it would know more then a person it can;t problem solve like that person, all these people are problem solvers and solved the problem they face

  333. Anonymous / Mar 24 2013 8:42 pm

    Einstein wasn’t a great mathematician?! He beat David Hilbert (WHAT OF THE GREATEST MATHEMATICIANS OF AL TIME) to the mathematics describing general relativity. He single handedly created an entire branch of physics with that theory by the way. E=mc^2 is an incredible accomplishment. He discovered/proved wave-particle duality etc etc etc. And stop mentioning Witten like you know something about string theory.

    • Amadeus / Apr 18 2013 12:25 pm

      actually david hilbert invented the mathematics for General Relativity as well the first introduction of Hilbert Space that is used in quantum mechanics

      DH > AE

      • John Eldrick / May 2 2013 5:43 pm

        Uh what? No, he did not. Pre-Einsteinian development of General Relativity is mostly due to Lorenz and Poincaré. Einstein ingeniously extended their work into his new aether-free, relativistic framework governed by non-euclidean geometry. Neither Lorentz nor Hilbert denied Einstein’s priority over the subject nor did the rest of his contemporaries. He is, all things considered, the greatest mind of 20th century.

  334. Anonymous / Mar 23 2013 11:07 am

    The blogger is such an idiot and I would obviously say that he/she is a rebel. There can be two ways why the blogger has written such idiotic stuffs :
    #1 Either he/she must be jealous of them being geniuses
    #2 Or the blogger must have wanted the readers to believe that he/she is great at judging things and ultimately would have wanted the readers to take him/her for a genius(this has got to be the ultimate reason!).

  335. El faraon volatil / Mar 23 2013 12:49 am

    jajaja …yeah!: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” – Eleanor Roosevelt. What makes me laugh was the time you expend to write all this lies. look: genious are serial producers: michio kaku produces tv series as if he goes to take 1 slide of cake, their mind is extremaly revolutioned, much more than you even could understand, because average people goes sloooower! than them, how can they judge what they are uncapable to reach in THEIR WHOLE LIFE. It is just like, oh! i don`t believe this hill is taller than me, so, you as hole, goes to the top of the hill and you say: oh see? -to every body- i`m taller than the hill!!… The only thing you do is to show up how small you realy feel of yourself. That`s it. Period.

  336. 4tesseract / Mar 20 2013 11:23 am

    “I wonder how controversial my claims will become.”

    They have become very controversial indeed.

  337. Anonymous / Mar 18 2013 6:06 pm

    Bull crap Leanardo Da Vinci built the tank and aqua gear and the projector and helicopter and bicycle! He is not an idiot! You are

  338. ironage / Mar 12 2013 10:18 am

    This whole article reads like an 8th grader wrote it.

  339. wetham / Mar 7 2013 7:06 am

    Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (Italian pronunciation: [leoˈnardo da ˈvintʃi] pronunciation (help·info)) (April 15, 1452 – May 2, 1519, Old Style) was an Italian Renaissance polymath: painter, sculptor, architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, and writer. His genius, perhaps more than that of any other figure, epitomized the Renaissance humanist ideal. Leonardo has often been described as the archetype of the Renaissance Man, a man of “unquenchable curiosity” and “feverishly inventive imagination”.[1] He is widely considered to be one of the greatest painters of all time and perhaps the most diversely talented person ever to have lived.[2] According to art historian Helen Gardner, the scope and depth of his interests were without precedent and “his mind and personality seem to us superhuman, the man himself mysterious and remote”.[1] Marco Rosci states that while there is much speculation about Leonardo, his vision of the world is essentially logical rather than mysterious, and that the empirical methods he employed were unusual for his time.[3]
    Born out of wedlock to a notary, Piero da Vinci, and a peasant woman, Caterina, at Vinci in the region of Florence, Leonardo was educated in the studio of the renowned Florentine painter, Verrocchio. Much of his earlier working life was spent in the service of Ludovico il Moro in Milan. He later worked in Rome, Bologna and Venice, and he spent his last years in France at the home awarded him by Francis I.
    Leonardo was and is renowned[2] primarily as a painter. Among his works, the Mona Lisa is the most famous and most parodied portrait[4] and The Last Supper the most reproduced religious painting of all time, with their fame approached only by Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam.[1] Leonardo’s drawing of the Vitruvian Man is also regarded as a cultural icon,[5] being reproduced on items as varied as the euro, textbooks, and T-shirts. Perhaps fifteen of his paintings survive, the small number because of his constant, and frequently disastrous, experimentation with new techniques, and his chronic procrastination.[nb 2] Nevertheless, these few works, together with his notebooks, which contain drawings, scientific diagrams, and his thoughts on the nature of painting, compose a contribution to later generations of artists rivalled only by that of his contemporary, Michelangelo.
    Leonardo is revered[2] for his technological ingenuity. He conceptualised a helicopter, a tank, concentrated solar power, a calculator,[6] and the double hull, and he outlined a rudimentary theory of plate tectonics. Relatively few of his designs were constructed or were even feasible during his lifetime,[nb 3] but some of his smaller inventions, such as an automated bobbin winder and a machine for testing the tensile strength of wire, entered the world of manufacturing unheralded.[nb 4] He made important discoveries in anatomy, civil engineering, optics, and hydrodynamics, but he did not publish his findings and they had no direct influence on later science.[7]
    Contents [hide]
    1 Life
    1.1 Childhood, 1452–66
    1.2 Verrocchio’s workshop, 1466–76
    1.3 Professional life, 1476–1513
    1.4 Old age, 1513–19
    2 Relationships and influences
    2.1 Florence: Leonardo’s artistic and social background
    2.2 Personal life
    2.3 Assistants and pupils
    3 Painting
    3.1 Early works
    3.2 Paintings of the 1480s
    3.3 Paintings of the 1490s
    3.4 Paintings of the 1500s
    3.5 Drawings
    4 Observation and invention
    4.1 Journals and notes
    4.2 Scientific studies
    4.3 Anatomy
    4.4 Engineering and inventions
    5 Fame and reputation
    6 See also
    7 Footnotes
    8 References
    9 Bibliography
    10 External links
    Life

    See also: Leonardo da Vinci’s personal life
    Childhood, 1452–66

    Leonardo’s childhood home in Anchiano

    Leonardo’s earliest known drawing, the Arno Valley (1473), Uffizi
    Leonardo was born on April 15, 1452 (Old Style), “at the third hour of the night”[nb 5] in the Tuscan hill town of Vinci, in the lower valley of the Arno River in the territory of the Medici-ruled Republic of Florence.[9] He was the out-of-wedlock son of the wealthy Messer Piero Fruosino di Antonio da Vinci, a Florentine legal notary, and Caterina, a peasant.[8][10][nb 6] Leonardo had no surname in the modern sense, “da Vinci” simply meaning “of Vinci”: his full birth name was “Lionardo di ser Piero da Vinci”, meaning “Leonardo, (son) of (Mes)ser Piero from Vinci”.[9] The inclusion of the title “ser” indicated that Leonardo’s father was a gentleman.
    Little is known about Leonardo’s early life. He spent his first five years in the hamlet of Anchiano in the home of his mother, then from 1457 he lived in the household of his father, grandparents and uncle, Francesco, in the small town of Vinci. His father had married a sixteen-year-old girl named Albiera, who loved Leonardo but died young.[11] When Leonardo was sixteen his father married again, to twenty-year-old Francesca Lanfredini. It was not until his third and fourth marriages that Ser Piero produced legitimate heirs.[12]
    Leonardo received an informal education in Latin, geometry and mathematics. In later life, Leonardo recorded only two childhood incidents. One, which he regarded as an omen, was when a kite dropped from the sky and hovered over his cradle, its tail feathers brushing his face.[13] The second occurred while exploring in the mountains. He discovered a cave and was both terrified that some great monster might lurk there and driven by curiosity to find out what was inside.[11]
    Leonardo’s early life has been the subject of historical conjecture.[14] Vasari, the 16th-century biographer of Renaissance painters, tells of how a local peasant made himself a round shield and requested that Ser Piero have it painted for him. Leonardo responded with a painting of a monster spitting fire which was so terrifying that Ser Piero sold it to a Florentine art dealer, who sold it to the Duke of Milan. Meanwhile, having made a profit, Ser Piero bought a shield decorated with a heart pierced by an arrow, which he gave to the peasant.[15]

    The Baptism of Christ (1472–1475)—Uffizi, by Verrocchio and Leonardo
    Verrocchio’s workshop, 1466–76
    In 1466, at the age of fourteen, Leonardo was apprenticed to the artist Andrea di Cione, known as Verrocchio, whose workshop was “one of the finest in Florence”.[16] Other famous painters apprenticed or associated with the workshop include Domenico Ghirlandaio, Perugino, Botticelli, and Lorenzo di Credi.[11][17] Leonardo would have been exposed to both theoretical training and a vast range of technical skills[18] including drafting, chemistry, metallurgy, metal working, plaster casting, leather working, mechanics and carpentry as well as the artistic skills of drawing, painting, sculpting and modelling.[19][nb 7]
    Much of the painted production of Verrocchio’s workshop was done by his employees. According to Vasari, Leonardo collaborated with Verrocchio on his The Baptism of Christ, painting the young angel holding Jesus’ robe in a manner that was so far superior to his master’s that Verrocchio put down his brush and never painted again.[20] On close examination, the painting reveals much that has been painted or touched up over the tempera using the new technique of oil paint, with the landscape, the rocks that can be seen through the brown mountain stream and much of the figure of Jesus bearing witness to the hand of Leonardo.[21] Leonardo may have been the model for two works by Verrocchio: the bronze statue of David in the Bargello and the Archangel Raphael in Tobias and the Angel.[10]
    By 1472, at the age of twenty, Leonardo qualified as a master in the Guild of St Luke, the guild of artists and doctors of medicine,[nb 8] but even after his father set him up in his own workshop, his attachment to Verrocchio was such that he continued to collaborate with him.[11] Leonardo’s earliest known dated work is a drawing in pen and ink of the Arno valley, drawn on August 5, 1473.[nb 9][17]
    Professional life, 1476–1513

    The Adoration of the Magi, (1481)—Uffizi
    Florentine court records of 1476 show that Leonardo and three other young men were charged with sodomy and acquitted.[10][nb 10] From that date until 1478 there is no record of his work or even of his whereabouts.[22] In 1478 he left Verrocchio’s studio and was no longer resident at his father’s house. One writer, the “Anonimo” Gaddiano claims that in 1480 he was living with the Medici and working in the Garden of the Piazza San Marco in Florence, a Neo-Platonic academy of artists, poets and philosophers that the Medici had established.[10] In January 1478, he received his first of two independent commissions: to paint an altarpiece for the Chapel of St. Bernard in the Palazzo Vecchio and, in March 1481, The Adoration of the Magi for the monks of San Donato a Scopeto.[23] Neither commission was completed, the second being interrupted when Leonardo went to Milan.
    In 1482 Leonardo, who according to Vasari was a most talented musician,[24] created a silver lyre in the shape of a horse’s head. Lorenzo de’ Medici sent Leonardo to Milan, bearing the lyre as a gift, to secure peace with Ludovico Sforza, Duke of Milan.[25] At this time Leonardo wrote an often-quoted letter describing the many marvellous and diverse things that he could achieve in the field of engineering and informing Ludovico that he could also paint.[17][26]
    Leonardo worked in Milan from 1482 until 1499. He was commissioned to paint the Virgin of the Rocks for the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception and The Last Supper for the monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie.[27] Between 1493 and 1495 Leonardo listed a woman called Caterina among his dependents in his taxation documents. When she died in 1495, the list of funeral expenditures suggests that she was his mother.[28]

    Study of horse from Leonardo’s journals – Royal Library, Windsor Castle
    Leonardo was employed on many different projects for Ludovico, including the preparation of floats and pageants for special occasions, designs for a dome for Milan Cathedral and a model for a huge equestrian monument to Francesco Sforza, Ludovico’s predecessor. Seventy tons of bronze were set aside for casting it. The monument remained unfinished for several years, which was not unusual for Leonardo. In 1492 the clay model of the horse was completed. It surpassed in size the only two large equestrian statues of the Renaissance, Donatello’s Gattemelata in Padua and Verrocchio’s Bartolomeo Colleoni in Venice, and became known as the “Gran Cavallo”.[17][nb 11] Leonardo began making detailed plans for its casting;[17] however, Michelangelo insulted Leonardo by implying that he was unable to cast it.[11] In November 1494 Ludovico gave the bronze to be used for cannon to defend the city from invasion by Charles VIII.[17]
    At the start of the Second Italian War in 1499, the invading French troops used the life-size clay model for the “Gran Cavallo” for target practice. With Ludovico Sforza overthrown, Leonardo, with his assistant Salai and friend, the mathematician Luca Pacioli, fled Milan for Venice[29] where he was employed as a military architect and engineer, devising methods to defend the city from naval attack.[11] On his return to Florence in 1500, he and his household were guests of the Servite monks at the monastery of Santissima Annunziata and were provided with a workshop where, according to Vasari, Leonardo created the cartoon of The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and St. John the Baptist, a work that won such admiration that “men and women, young and old” flocked to see it “as if they were attending a great festival”.[30][nb 12]

    Leonardo da Vinci’s very accurate map of Imola, created for Cesare Borgia
    In Cesena, in 1502 Leonardo entered the service of Cesare Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander VI, acting as a military architect and engineer and travelling throughout Italy with his patron.[29] Leonardo created a map of Cesare Borgia’s stronghold, a town plan of Imola in order to win his patronage. Maps were extremely rare at the time and it would have seemed like a new concept; upon seeing it, Cesare hired Leonardo as his chief military engineer and architect. Later in the year, Leonardo produced another map for his patron, one of Chiana Valley, Tuscany so as to give his patron a better overlay of the land and greater strategic position. He created this map in conjunction with his other project of constructing a dam from the sea to Florence in order to allow a supply of water to sustain the canal during all seasons.
    Leonardo returned to Florence where he rejoined the Guild of St Luke on October 18, 1503, and spent two years designing and painting a mural of The Battle of Anghiari for the Signoria,[29] with Michelangelo designing its companion piece, The Battle of Cascina.[nb 13] In Florence in 1504, he was part of a committee formed to relocate, against the artist’s will, Michelangelo’s statue of David.[34]
    In 1506 Leonardo returned to Milan. Many of his most prominent pupils or followers in painting either knew or worked with him in Milan,[11] including Bernardino Luini, Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio and Marco d’Oggione.[nb 14] However, he did not stay in Milan for long because his father had died in 1504, and in 1507 he was back in Florence trying to sort out problems with his brothers over his father’s estate. By 1508 Leonardo was back in Milan, living in his own house in Porta Orientale in the parish of Santa Babila.[35]
    Old age, 1513–19
    From September 1513 to 1516, Leonardo spent much of his time living in the Belvedere in the Vatican in Rome, where Raphael and Michelangelo were both active at the time.[35] In October 1515, Francis I of France recaptured Milan.[23] On December 19, Leonardo was present at the meeting of Francis I and Pope Leo X, which took place in Bologna.[11][36][37] Leonardo was commissioned to make for Francis a mechanical lion which could walk forward, then open its chest to reveal a cluster of lilies.[38][nb 15] In 1516, he entered François’ service, being given the use of the manor house Clos Lucé[nb 16] near the king’s residence at the royal Château d’Amboise. It was here that he spent the last three years of his life, accompanied by his friend and apprentice, Count Francesco Melzi, and supported by a pension totalling 10,000 scudi.[35]

    Clos Lucé in France, where Leonardo died in 1519
    Leonardo died at Clos Lucé, on May 2, 1519. Francis I had become a close friend. Vasari records that the king held Leonardo’s head in his arms as he died, although this story, beloved by the French and portrayed in romantic paintings by Ingres, Ménageot and other French artists, as well as by Angelica Kauffmann, may be legend rather than fact.[nb 17] Vasari states that in his last days, Leonardo sent for a priest to make his confession and to receive the Holy Sacrament.[40] In accordance with his will, sixty beggars followed his casket.[nb 18] Melzi was the principal heir and executor, receiving as well as money, Leonardo’s paintings, tools, library and personal effects. Leonardo also remembered his other long-time pupil and companion, Salai and his servant Battista di Vilussis, who each received half of Leonardo’s vineyards, his brothers who received land, and his serving woman who received a black cloak “of good stuff” with a fur edge.[nb 19][41] Leonardo da Vinci was buried in the Chapel of Saint-Hubert in Château d’Amboise, in France.
    Some 20 years after Leonardo’s death, Francis was reported by the goldsmith and sculptor Benevenuto Cellini as saying: “There had never been another man born in the world who knew as much as Leonardo, not so much about painting, sculpture and architecture, as that he was a very great philosopher.”[42]
    Relationships and influences

    Ghiberti’s Gates of Paradise, (1425–1452) were a source of communal pride. Many artists assisted in their creation.
    Florence: Leonardo’s artistic and social background
    Florence, at the time of Leonardo’s youth, was the centre of Christian Humanist thought and culture.[16] Leonardo commenced his apprenticeship with Verrocchio in 1466, the year that Verrocchio’s master, the great sculptor Donatello, died. The painter Uccello, whose early experiments with perspective were to influence the development of landscape painting, was a very old man. The painters Piero della Francesca and Fra Filippo Lippi, sculptor Luca della Robbia, and architect and writer Leon Battista Alberti were in their sixties. The successful artists of the next generation were Leonardo’s teacher Verrocchio, Antonio Pollaiuolo and the portrait sculptor, Mino da Fiesole whose lifelike busts give the most reliable likenesses of Lorenzo Medici’s father Piero and uncle Giovanni.[43][44][45][46]
    Leonardo’s youth was spent in a Florence that was ornamented by the works of these artists and by Donatello’s contemporaries, Masaccio, whose figurative frescoes were imbued with realism and emotion and Ghiberti whose Gates of Paradise, gleaming with gold leaf, displayed the art of combining complex figure compositions with detailed architectural backgrounds. Piero della Francesca had made a detailed study of perspective,[47] and was the first painter to make a scientific study of light. These studies and Alberti’s Treatise[48] were to have a profound effect on younger artists and in particular on Leonardo’s own observations and artworks.[43][45][46]
    Massaccio’s “The Expulsion from the Garden of Eden” depicting the naked and distraught Adam and Eve created a powerfully expressive image of the human form, cast into three dimensions by the use of light and shade which was to be developed in the works of Leonardo in a way that was to be influential in the course of painting. The humanist influence of Donatello’s “David” can be seen in Leonardo’s late paintings, particularly John the Baptist.[43][44]

    Small devotional picture by Verrocchio, c. 1470
    A prevalent tradition in Florence was the small altarpiece of the Virgin and Child. Many of these were created in tempera or glazed terracotta by the workshops of Filippo Lippi, Verrocchio and the prolific della Robbia family.[43] Leonardo’s early Madonnas such as The Madonna with a carnation and The Benois Madonna followed this tradition while showing idiosyncratic departures, particularly in the case of the Benois Madonna in which the Virgin is set at an oblique angle to the picture space with the Christ Child at the opposite angle. This compositional theme was to emerge in Leonardo’s later paintings such as The Virgin and Child with St. Anne.[11]
    Leonardo was a contemporary of Botticelli, Domenico Ghirlandaio and Perugino, who were all slightly older than he was.[44] He would have met them at the workshop of Verrocchio, with whom they had associations, and at the Academy of the Medici.[11] Botticelli was a particular favourite of the Medici family, and thus his success as a painter was assured. Ghirlandaio and Perugino were both prolific and ran large workshops. They competently delivered commissions to well-satisfied patrons who appreciated Ghirlandaio’s ability to portray the wealthy citizens of Florence within large religious frescoes, and Perugino’s ability to deliver a multitude of saints and angels of unfailing sweetness and innocence.[43]

    The Portinari Altarpiece, by Hugo van der Goes for a Florentine family
    These three were among those commissioned to paint the walls of the Sistine Chapel, the work commencing with Perugino’s employment in 1479. Leonardo was not part of this prestigious commission. His first significant commission, The Adoration of the Magi for the Monks of Scopeto, was never completed.[11]
    In 1476, during the time of Leonardo’s association with Verrocchio’s workshop, the Portinari Altarpiece by Hugo van der Goes arrived in Florence, bringing new painterly techniques from Northern Europe which were to profoundly affect Leonardo, Ghirlandaio, Perugino and others.[44] In 1479, the Sicilian painter Antonello da Messina, who worked exclusively in oils, traveled north on his way to Venice, where the leading painter Giovanni Bellini adopted the technique of oil painting, quickly making it the preferred method in Venice. Leonardo was also later to visit Venice.[44][46]
    Like the two contemporary architects Bramante and Antonio da Sangallo the Elder Leonardo experimented with designs for centrally planned churches, a number of which appear in his journals, as both plans and views, although none was ever realised.[44][49]

    Lorenzo de’ Medici between Antonio Pucci and Francesco Sassetti, with Giulio de’ Medici, fresco by Ghirlandaio
    Leonardo’s political contemporaries were Lorenzo Medici (il Magnifico), who was three years older, and his younger brother Giuliano who was slain in the Pazzi Conspiracy in 1478. Ludovico il Moro who ruled Milan between 1479–1499 and to whom Leonardo was sent as ambassador from the Medici court, was also of Leonardo’s age.[44]
    With Alberti, Leonardo visited the home of the Medici and through them came to know the older Humanist philosophers of whom Marsiglio Ficino, proponent of Neo Platonism; Cristoforo Landino, writer of commentaries on Classical writings, and John Argyropoulos, teacher of Greek and translator of Aristotle were the foremost. Also associated with the Academy of the Medici was Leonardo’s contemporary, the brilliant young poet and philosopher Pico della Mirandola.[44][46][50] Leonardo later wrote in the margin of a journal “The Medici made me and the Medici destroyed me.” While it was through the action of Lorenzo that Leonardo received his employment at the court of Milan, it is not known exactly what Leonardo meant by this cryptic comment.[11]
    Although usually named together as the three giants of the High Renaissance, Leonardo, Michelangelo and Raphael were not of the same generation. Leonardo was twenty-three when Michelangelo was born and thirty-one when Raphael was born.[44] Raphael only lived until the age of 37 and died in 1520, the year after Leonardo, but Michelangelo went on creating for another 45 years.[45][46]

    Study for a portrait of Isabella d’Este (1500) Louvre
    Personal life
    Main article: Leonardo da Vinci’s personal life
    Within Leonardo’s lifetime, his extraordinary powers of invention, his “outstanding physical beauty”, “infinite grace”, “great strength and generosity”, “regal spirit and tremendous breadth of mind” as described by Vasari,[51] as well as all other aspects of his life, attracted the curiosity of others. One such aspect is his respect for life evidenced by his vegetarianism and his habit, according to Vasari, of purchasing caged birds and releasing them.[52][53]
    Leonardo had many friends who are now renowned either in their fields or for their historical significance. They included the mathematician Luca Pacioli,[54] with whom he collaborated on a book in the 1490s, as well as Franchinus Gaffurius and Isabella d’Este.[citation needed] Leonardo appears to have had no close relationships with women except for his friendship with the two Este sisters, Beatrice and Isabella.[55] He drew a portrait of Isabella while on a journey which took him through Mantua, and which appears to have been used to create a painted portrait, now lost.[11]
    Beyond friendship, Leonardo kept his private life secret. His sexuality has been the subject of satire, analysis, and speculation. This trend began in the mid-16th century and was revived in the 19th and 20th centuries, most notably by Sigmund Freud.[56] Leonardo’s most intimate relationships were perhaps with his pupils Salai and Melzi. Melzi, writing to inform Leonardo’s brothers of his death, described Leonardo’s feelings for his pupils as both loving and passionate. It has been claimed since the 16th century that these relationships were of a sexual or erotic nature. Court records of 1476, when he was aged twenty-four, show that Leonardo and three other young men were charged with sodomy in an incident involving a well-known male prostitute. The charges were dismissed for lack of evidence, and there is speculation that since one of the accused, Lionardo de Tornabuoni, was related to Lorenzo de’ Medici, the family exerted its influence to secure the dismissal.[57] Since that date much has been written about his presumed homosexuality and its role in his art, particularly in the androgyny and eroticism manifested in John the Baptist and Bacchus and more explicitly in a number of erotic drawings.[58]

    John the Baptist. Salai is thought to have been the model.[59] (c. 1514)—Louvre.
    Assistants and pupils
    Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno, nicknamed Salai or Il Salaino (“The Little Unclean One” i.e., the devil), entered Leonardo’s household in 1490. After only a year, Leonardo made a list of his misdemeanours, calling him “a thief, a liar, stubborn, and a glutton”, after he had made off with money and valuables on at least five occasions and spent a fortune on clothes.[60] Nevertheless, Leonardo treated him with great indulgence, and he remained in Leonardo’s household for the next thirty years.[61] Salai executed a number of paintings under the name of Andrea Salai, but although Vasari claims that Leonardo “taught him a great deal about painting”,[38] his work is generally considered to be of less artistic merit than others among Leonardo’s pupils, such as Marco d’Oggione and Boltraffio. In 1515, he painted a nude version of the Mona Lisa, known as Monna Vanna.[62] Salai owned the Mona Lisa at the time of his death in 1525, and in his will it was assessed at 505 lire, an exceptionally high valuation for a small panel portrait.[63]
    In 1506, Leonardo took on another pupil, Count Francesco Melzi, the son of a Lombard aristocrat, who is considered to have been his favourite student. He travelled to France with Leonardo and remained with him until Leonardo’s death.[11] Melzi inherited the artistic and scientific works, manuscripts, and collections of Leonardo and administered the estate.
    Painting

    See also: List of works by Leonardo da Vinci

    Annunciation (1475–1480)—Uffizi, is thought to be Leonardo’s earliest complete work.
    Despite the recent awareness and admiration of Leonardo as a scientist and inventor, for the better part of four hundred years his fame rested on his achievements as a painter and on a handful of works, either authenticated or attributed to him that have been regarded as among the masterpieces.[64]
    These paintings are famous for a variety of qualities which have been much imitated by students and discussed at great length by connoisseurs and critics. Among the qualities that make Leonardo’s work unique are the innovative techniques that he used in laying on the paint, his detailed knowledge of anatomy, light, botany and geology, his interest in physiognomy and the way in which humans register emotion in expression and gesture, his innovative use of the human form in figurative composition, and his use of the subtle gradation of tone. All these qualities come together in his most famous painted works, the Mona Lisa, the Last Supper and the Virgin of the Rocks.[65]

    Unfinished painting of St. Jerome in the Wilderness, (c. 1480), Vatican.
    Early works
    Leonardo’s early works begin with the Baptism of Christ painted in conjunction with Verrocchio. Two other paintings appear to date from his time at the workshop, both of which are Annunciations. One is small, 59 centimetres (23 in) long and 14 centimetres (5.5 in) high. It is a “predella” to go at the base of a larger composition, in this case a painting by Lorenzo di Credi from which it has become separated. The other is a much larger work, 217 centimetres (85 in) long.[66] In both these Annunciations, Leonardo used a formal arrangement, such as in Fra Angelico’s two well-known pictures of the same subject, of the Virgin Mary sitting or kneeling to the right of the picture, approached from the left by an angel in profile with rich flowing garment, raised wings and bearing a lily. Although previously attributed to Ghirlandaio, the larger work is now generally attributed to Leonardo.[67]
    In the smaller picture Mary averts her eyes and folds her hands in a gesture that symbolised submission to God’s will. In the larger picture, however, Mary is not submissive. The girl, interrupted in her reading by this unexpected messenger, puts a finger in her bible to mark the place and raises her hand in a formal gesture of greeting or surprise.[43] This calm young woman appears to accept her role as the Mother of God not with resignation but with confidence. In this painting the young Leonardo presents the humanist face of the Virgin Mary, recognising humanity’s role in God’s incarnation.[nb 20]
    Paintings of the 1480s

    Virgin of the Rocks, Louvre, demonstrates Leonardo’s interest in nature.
    In the 1480s Leonardo received two very important commissions and commenced another work which was also of ground-breaking importance in terms of composition. Two of the three were never finished, and the third took so long that it was subject to lengthy negotiations over completion and payment. One of these paintings is that of St. Jerome in the Wilderness. Bortolon associates this picture with a difficult period of Leonardo’s life, as evidenced in his diary: “I thought I was learning to live; I was only learning to die.”[11]
    Although the painting is barely begun, the composition can be seen and it is very unusual.[nb 21] Jerome, as a penitent, occupies the middle of the picture, set on a slight diagonal and viewed somewhat from above. His kneeling form takes on a trapezoid shape, with one arm stretched to the outer edge of the painting and his gaze looking in the opposite direction. J. Wasserman points out the link between this painting and Leonardo’s anatomical studies.[69] Across the foreground sprawls his symbol, a great lion whose body and tail make a double spiral across the base of the picture space. The other remarkable feature is the sketchy landscape of craggy rocks against which the figure is silhouetted.
    The daring display of figure composition, the landscape elements and personal drama also appear in the great unfinished masterpiece, the Adoration of the Magi, a commission from the Monks of San Donato a Scopeto. It is a complex composition, of about 250 x 250 centimetres. Leonardo did numerous drawings and preparatory studies, including a detailed one in linear perspective of the ruined classical architecture which makes part of the backdrop to the scene. But in 1482 Leonardo went off to Milan at the behest of Lorenzo de’ Medici in order to win favour with Ludovico il Moro, and the painting was abandoned.[10][67]
    The third important work of this period is the Virgin of the Rocks which was commissioned in Milan for the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception. The painting, to be done with the assistance of the de Predis brothers, was to fill a large complex altarpiece, already constructed.[70] Leonardo chose to paint an apocryphal moment of the infancy of Christ when the infant John the Baptist, in protection of an angel, met the Holy Family on the road to Egypt. In this scene, as painted by Leonardo, John recognizes and worships Jesus as the Christ. The painting demonstrates an eerie beauty as the graceful figures kneel in adoration around the infant Christ in a wild landscape of tumbling rock and whirling water.[71] While the painting is quite large, about 200 × 120 centimetres, it is not nearly as complex as the painting ordered by the monks of St Donato, having only four figures rather than about fifty and a rocky landscape rather than architectural details. The painting was eventually finished; in fact, two versions of the painting were finished, one which remained at the chapel of the Confraternity and the other which Leonardo carried away to France. But the Brothers did not get their painting, or the de Predis their payment, until the next century.[17][29]

    The Last Supper (1498)—Convent of Sta. Maria delle Grazie, Milan, Italy
    Paintings of the 1490s
    Leonardo’s most famous painting of the 1490s is The Last Supper, painted for the refectory of the Convent of Santa Maria della Grazie in Milan. The painting represents the last meal shared by Jesus with his disciples before his capture and death. It shows specifically the moment when Jesus has just said “one of you will betray me”. Leonardo tells the story of the consternation that this statement caused to the twelve followers of Jesus.[17]
    The novelist Matteo Bandello observed Leonardo at work and wrote that some days he would paint from dawn till dusk without stopping to eat and then not paint for three or four days at a time.[72] This was beyond the comprehension of the prior of the convent, who hounded him until Leonardo asked Ludovico to intervene. Vasari describes how Leonardo, troubled over his ability to adequately depict the faces of Christ and the traitor Judas, told the Duke that he might be obliged to use the prior as his model.[73]
    When finished, the painting was acclaimed as a masterpiece of design and characterisation,[74] but it deteriorated rapidly, so that within a hundred years it was described by one viewer as “completely ruined”.[75] Leonardo, instead of using the reliable technique of fresco, had used tempera over a ground that was mainly gesso, resulting in a surface which was subject to mold and to flaking.[76] Despite this, the painting has remained one of the most reproduced works of art, countless copies being made in every medium from carpets to cameos.
    Paintings of the 1500s

    Mona Lisa or La Gioconda (1503–1505/1507)—Louvre, Paris, France
    Among the works created by Leonardo in the 16th century is the small portrait known as the Mona Lisa or “la Gioconda”, the laughing one. In the present era it is arguably the most famous painting in the world. Its fame rests, in particular, on the elusive smile on the woman’s face, its mysterious quality brought about perhaps by the fact that the artist has subtly shadowed the corners of the mouth and eyes so that the exact nature of the smile cannot be determined. The shadowy quality for which the work is renowned came to be called “sfumato” or Leonardo’s smoke. Vasari, who is generally thought to have known the painting only by repute, said that “the smile was so pleasing that it seemed divine rather than human; and those who saw it were amazed to find that it was as alive as the original”.[77][nb 22]
    Other characteristics found in this work are the unadorned dress, in which the eyes and hands have no competition from other details, the dramatic landscape background in which the world seems to be in a state of flux, the subdued colouring and the extremely smooth nature of the painterly technique, employing oils, but laid on much like tempera and blended on the surface so that the brushstrokes are indistinguishable.[nb 23] Vasari expressed the opinion that the manner of painting would make even “the most confident master … despair and lose heart.”[80] The perfect state of preservation and the fact that there is no sign of repair or overpainting is rare in a panel painting of this date.[81]
    In the painting Virgin and Child with St. Anne the composition again picks up the theme of figures in a landscape which Wasserman describes as “breathtakingly beautiful”[82] and harkens back to the St Jerome picture with the figure set at an oblique angle. What makes this painting unusual is that there are two obliquely set figures superimposed. Mary is seated on the knee of her mother, St Anne. She leans forward to restrain the Christ Child as he plays roughly with a lamb, the sign of his own impending sacrifice.[17] This painting, which was copied many times, influenced Michelangelo, Raphael, and Andrea del Sarto,[83] and through them Pontormo and Correggio. The trends in composition were adopted in particular by the Venetian painters Tintoretto and Veronese.

    The Virgin and Child with St. Anne, (c. 1510)-Louvre Museum

    The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and St. John the Baptist (c. 1499–1500)—National Gallery, London
    Drawings
    Leonardo was not a prolific painter, but he was a most prolific draftsman, keeping journals full of small sketches and detailed drawings recording all manner of things that took his attention. As well as the journals there exist many studies for paintings, some of which can be identified as preparatory to particular works such as The Adoration of the Magi, The Virgin of the Rocks and The Last Supper.[84] His earliest dated drawing is a Landscape of the Arno Valley, 1473, which shows the river, the mountains, Montelupo Castle and the farmlands beyond it in great detail.[11][84]
    Among his famous drawings are the Vitruvian Man, a study of the proportions of the human body, the Head of an Angel, for The Virgin of the Rocks in the Louvre, a botanical study of Star of Bethlehem and a large drawing (160×100 cm) in black chalk on coloured paper of The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and St. John the Baptist in the National Gallery, London.[84] This drawing employs the subtle sfumato technique of shading, in the manner of the Mona Lisa. It is thought that Leonardo never made a painting from it, the closest similarity being to The Virgin and Child with St. Anne in the Louvre.[85]
    Other drawings of interest include numerous studies generally referred to as “caricatures” because, although exaggerated, they appear to be based upon observation of live models. Vasari relates that if Leonardo saw a person with an interesting face he would follow them around all day observing them.[86] There are numerous studies of beautiful young men, often associated with Salai, with the rare and much admired facial feature, the so-called “Grecian profile”.[nb 24] These faces are often contrasted with that of a warrior.[84] Salai is often depicted in fancy-dress costume. Leonardo is known to have designed sets for pageants with which these may be associated. Other, often meticulous, drawings show studies of drapery. A marked development in Leonardo’s ability to draw drapery occurred in his early works. Another often-reproduced drawing is a macabre sketch that was done by Leonardo in Florence in 1479 showing the body of Bernardo Baroncelli, hanged in connection with the murder of Giuliano, brother of Lorenzo de’ Medici, in the Pazzi Conspiracy.[84] With dispassionate integrity Leonardo has registered in neat mirror writing the colours of the robes that Baroncelli was wearing when he died.
    Observation and invention

    Main article: Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci

    The Vitruvian Man (c. 1485) Accademia, Venice
    Journals and notes
    See also: List of works by Leonardo da Vinci#Manuscripts
    Renaissance humanism recognized no mutually exclusive polarities between the sciences and the arts, and Leonardo’s studies in science and engineering are as impressive and innovative as his artistic work.[17] These studies were recorded in 13,000 pages of notes and drawings, which fuse art and natural philosophy (the forerunner of modern science), made and maintained daily throughout Leonardo’s life and travels, as he made continual observations of the world around him.[17]
    Leonardo’s writings are mostly in mirror-image cursive. The reason may have been more a practical expediency than for reasons of secrecy as is often suggested. Since Leonardo wrote with his left hand, it is probable that it was easier for him to write from right to left.[nb 25]

    A page showing Leonardo’s study of a foetus in the womb (c. 1510) Royal Library, Windsor Castle
    His notes and drawings display an enormous range of interests and preoccupations, some as mundane as lists of groceries and people who owed him money and some as intriguing as designs for wings and shoes for walking on water. There are compositions for paintings, studies of details and drapery, studies of faces and emotions, of animals, babies, dissections, plant studies, rock formations, whirlpools, war machines, helicopters and architecture.[17]
    These notebooks—originally loose papers of different types and sizes, distributed by friends after his death—have found their way into major collections such as the Royal Library at Windsor Castle, the Louvre, the Biblioteca Nacional de España, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan which holds the twelve-volume Codex Atlanticus, and British Library in London which has put a selection from the Codex Arundel (BL Arundel MS 263) online.[87] The Codex Leicester is the only major scientific work of Leonardo’s in private hands. It is owned by Bill Gates and is displayed once a year in different cities around the world.
    Leonardo’s notes appear to have been intended for publication because many of the sheets have a form and order that would facilitate this. In many cases a single topic, for example, the heart or the human fetus, is covered in detail in both words and pictures on a single sheet.[88][nb 26] Why they were not published within Leonardo’s lifetime is unknown.[17]
    Scientific studies

    Rhombicuboctahedron as published in Pacioli’s De Divina Proportione
    Leonardo’s approach to science was an observational one: he tried to understand a phenomenon by describing and depicting it in utmost detail and did not emphasize experiments or theoretical explanation. Since he lacked formal education in Latin and mathematics, contemporary scholars mostly ignored Leonardo the scientist, although he did teach himself Latin. In the 1490s he studied mathematics under Luca Pacioli and prepared a series of drawings of regular solids in a skeletal form to be engraved as plates for Pacioli’s book De Divina Proportione, published in 1509.[17]
    It appears that from the content of his journals he was planning a series of treatises to be published on a variety of subjects. A coherent treatise on anatomy was said to have been observed during a visit by Cardinal Louis ‘D’ Aragon’s secretary in 1517.[89] Aspects of his work on the studies of anatomy, light and the landscape were assembled for publication by his pupil Francesco Melzi and eventually published as Treatise on Painting by Leonardo da Vinci in France and Italy in 1651 and Germany in 1724,[90] with engravings based upon drawings by the Classical painter Nicholas Poussin.[citation needed] According to Arasse, the treatise, which in France went into sixty two editions in fifty years, caused Leonardo to be seen as “the precursor of French academic thought on art”.[17]
    While Leonardo’s experimentation followed clear scientific methods, a recent and exhaustive analysis of Leonardo as scientist by Frtijof Capra argues that Leonardo was a fundamentally different kind of scientist from Galileo, Newton and other scientists who followed him in that, as a Renaissance Man, his theorising and hypothesising integrated the arts and particularly painting.[91]

    Anatomical study of the arm, (c. 1510)
    Anatomy
    Leonardo’s formal training in the anatomy of the human body began with his apprenticeship to Andrea del Verrocchio, who insisted that all his pupils learn anatomy. As an artist, he quickly became master of topographic anatomy, drawing many studies of muscles, tendons and other visible anatomical features.
    As a successful artist, he was given permission to dissect human corpses at the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova in Florence and later at hospitals in Milan and Rome. From 1510 to 1511 he collaborated in his studies with the doctor Marcantonio della Torre. Leonardo made over 200 pages of drawings and many pages of notes towards a treatise on anatomy. These papers were left to his heir, Francesco Melzi, for publication, a task of overwhelming difficulty because of its scope and Leonardo’s idiosyncratic writing.[92] It was left incomplete at the time of Melzi’s death more than fifty years later, with only a small amount of the material on anatomy included in Leonardo’s Treatise on painting, published in France in 1632.[17][92] During the time that Melzi was ordering the material into chapters for publication, they were examined by a number of anatomists and artists, including Vasari, Cellini and Albrecht Dürer who made a number of drawings from them.[92]
    Leonardo drew many studies of the human skeleton and its parts, as well as muscles and sinews. He studied the mechanical functions of the skeleton and the muscular forces that are applied to it in a manner that prefigured the modern science of biomechanics.[93] He drew the heart and vascular system, the sex organs and other internal organs, making one of the first scientific drawings of a fetus in utero.[84] As an artist, Leonardo closely observed and recorded the effects of age and of human emotion on the physiology, studying in particular the effects of rage. He also drew many figures who had significant facial deformities or signs of illness.[17][84]
    Leonardo also studied and drew the anatomy of many animals, dissecting cows, birds, monkeys, bears, and frogs, and comparing in his drawings their anatomical structure with that of humans. He also made a number of studies of horses.
    Engineering and inventions

    A design for a flying machine, (c. 1488) Institut de France, Paris
    During his lifetime Leonardo was valued as an engineer. In a letter to Ludovico il Moro he claimed to be able to create all sorts of machines both for the protection of a city and for siege. When he fled to Venice in 1499 he found employment as an engineer and devised a system of moveable barricades to protect the city from attack. He also had a scheme for diverting the flow of the Arno River, a project on which Niccolò Machiavelli also worked.[94][95] Leonardo’s journals include a vast number of inventions, both practical and impractical. They include musical instruments, hydraulic pumps, reversible crank mechanisms, finned mortar shells, and a steam cannon.[11][17]
    In 1502, Leonardo produced a drawing of a single span 720-foot (220 m) bridge as part of a civil engineering project for Ottoman Sultan Beyazid II of Constantinople. The bridge was intended to span an inlet at the mouth of the Bosporus known as the Golden Horn. Beyazid did not pursue the project because he believed that such a construction was impossible. Leonardo’s vision was resurrected in 2001 when a smaller bridge based on his design was constructed in Norway.[96][97]
    For much of his life, Leonardo was fascinated by the phenomenon of flight, producing many studies of the flight of birds, including his c. 1505 Codex on the Flight of Birds, as well as plans for several flying machines, including a light hang glider and a machine resembling a helicopter.[17] The British television station Channel Four commissioned a documentary Leonardo’s Dream Machines, for broadcast in 2003. Leonardo’s machines were built and tested according to his original designs.[98] Some of those designs proved a success, whilst others fared less well when practically tested.
    Fame and reputation

    Main article: Cultural references to Leonardo da Vinci

    Francis I of France receiving the last breath of Leonardo da Vinci, by Ingres, 1818
    Within Leonardo’s own lifetime his fame was such that the King of France carried him away like a trophy and was claimed to have supported him in his old age and held him in his arms as he died. Interest in Leonardo has never diminished. The crowds still queue to see his most famous artworks, T-shirts bear his most famous drawing, and writers continue to marvel at his genius and speculate about his private life and, particularly, about what one so intelligent actually believed in.[17]
    Giorgio Vasari, in the enlarged edition of Lives of the Artists, 1568,[99] introduced his chapter on Leonardo da Vinci with the following words:
    In the normal course of events many men and women are born with remarkable talents; but occasionally, in a way that transcends nature, a single person is marvellously endowed by Heaven with beauty, grace and talent in such abundance that he leaves other men far behind, all his actions seem inspired and indeed everything he does clearly comes from God rather than from human skill. Everyone acknowledged that this was true of Leonardo da Vinci, an artist of outstanding physical beauty, who displayed infinite grace in everything that he did and who cultivated his genius so brilliantly that all problems he studied he solved with ease.
    —Giorgio Vasari
    The continued admiration that Leonardo commanded from painters, critics and historians is reflected in many other written tributes. Baldassare Castiglione, author of Il Cortegiano (“The Courtier”), wrote in 1528: “… Another of the greatest painters in this world looks down on this art in which he is unequalled …”[100] while the biographer known as “Anonimo Gaddiano” wrote, c. 1540: “His genius was so rare and universal that it can be said that nature worked a miracle on his behalf …”.[101]

    Statue of Leonardo in Amboise
    The 19th century brought a particular admiration for Leonardo’s genius, causing Henry Fuseli to write in 1801: “Such was the dawn of modern art, when Leonardo da Vinci broke forth with a splendour that distanced former excellence: made up of all the elements that constitute the essence of genius …”[102] This is echoed by A. E. Rio who wrote in 1861: “He towered above all other artists through the strength and the nobility of his talents.”[103]
    By the 19th century, the scope of Leonardo’s notebooks was known, as well as his paintings. Hippolyte Taine wrote in 1866: “There may not be in the world an example of another genius so universal, so incapable of fulfilment, so full of yearning for the infinite, so naturally refined, so far ahead of his own century and the following centuries.”[104] Art historian Bernard Berenson wrote in 1896: “Leonardo is the one artist of whom it may be said with perfect literalness: Nothing that he touched but turned into a thing of eternal beauty. Whether it be the cross section of a skull, the structure of a weed, or a study of muscles, he, with his feeling for line and for light and shade, forever transmuted it into life-communicating values.”[105]
    The interest in Leonardo’s genius has continued unabated; experts study and translate his writings, analyse his paintings using scientific techniques, argue over attributions and search for works which have been recorded but never found.[106] Liana Bortolon, writing in 1967, said: “Because of the multiplicity of interests that spurred him to pursue every field of knowledge … Leonardo can be considered, quite rightly, to have been the universal genius par excellence, and with all the disquieting overtones inherent in that term. Man is as uncomfortable today, faced with a genius, as he was in the 16th century. Five centuries have passed, yet we still view Leonardo with awe.”[11]
    See also

    Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Leonardo da Vinci

    Book: Leonardo da Vinci
    Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci
    List of works by Leonardo da Vinci
    Leonardo da Vinci’s personal life
    Cultural references to Leonardo da Vinci
    Leonardo da Vinci, A Memory of His Childhood
    Aerial perspective
    Italian Renaissance painting
    List of Italian painters
    List of vegetarians
    Medical Renaissance
    Renaissance technology
    Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia “Leonardo da Vinci”
    Leonardo da Vinci-Fiumicino Airport
    Footnotes

    ^ This drawing in red chalk is widely (though not universally) accepted as an original self-portrait. The main reason for hesitation in accepting it as a portrait of Leonardo is that, to modern eyes, the subject appears to be of a greater age than Leonardo ever achieved. It is possible that Leonardo drew this picture of himself deliberately aged, specifically for Raphael’s portrait of him in The School of Athens.
    ^ There are 15 significant artworks which are ascribed, either in whole or in large part, to Leonardo by most art historians. This number is made up principally of paintings on panel but includes a mural, a large drawing on paper and two works which are in the early stages of preparation. There are a number of other works that have also been variously attributed to Leonardo.
    ^ Modern scientific approaches to metallurgy and engineering were only in their infancy during the Renaissance.
    ^ A number of Leonardo’s most practical inventions are displayed as working models at the Museum of Vinci.
    ^ His birth is recorded in the diary of his paternal grandfather Ser Antonio, as cited by Angela Ottino della Chiesa in Leonardo da Vinci, and Reynal & Co., Leonardo da Vinci (William Morrow and Company, 1956): “A grandson of mine was born April 15, Saturday, three hours into the night”. The date was recorded in the Julian calendar; as it was Florentine time and sunset was 6:40 pm, three hours after sunset would be sometime around 9:40 pm which was still April 14 by modern reckoning. The conversion to the New Style calendar adds nine days; hence Leonardo was born April 23 according to the modern calendar.[8]
    ^ It has been suggested that Caterina may have been a slave from the Middle East “or at least, from the Mediterranean”. According to Alessandro Vezzosi, head of the Leonardo Museum in Vinci, there is evidence that Piero owned a Middle Eastern slave called Caterina. That Leonardo had Middle Eastern blood is claimed to be supported by the reconstruction of a fingerprint as reported by Falconi, Marta (December 12, 2006) [2006-12-1]. “Experts Reconstruct Leonardo Fingerprint”. Associated Press (News ed.). USA: Fox. Retrieved 2010-01-06.. The evidence, as stated in the article, is that 60% of people of Middle Eastern origin share the pattern of whirls found on the reconstructed fingerprint. The article also states that the claim is refuted by Simon Cole, associate professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California at Irvine: “You can’t predict one person’s race from these kinds of incidences, especially if looking at only one finger.”
    ^ The “diverse arts” and technical skills of Medieval and Renaissance workshops are described in detail in the 12th century text On Divers Arts by Theophilus Presbyter and in the early 15th century text Il Libro Dell’arte O Trattato Della Pittui by Cennino Cennini.
    ^ That Leonardo joined the guild before this time is deduced from the record of payment made to the Compagnia di San Luca in the company’s register, Libro Rosso A, 1472–1520, Accademia di Belle Arti.[10]
    ^ This work is now in the collection of the Uffizi, Drawing No. 8P.
    ^ Homosexual acts were illegal in Renaissance Florence.
    ^ Verrocchio’s statue of Bartolomeo Colleoni was not cast until 1488, after his death, and after Leonardo had already begun work on the statue for Ludovico.
    ^ In 2005, the studio was rediscovered during the restoration of part of a building occupied for 100 years by the Department of Military Geography.[31]
    ^ Both works are lost. While the entire composition of Michelangelo’s painting is known from a copy by Aristotole da Sangallo, 1542.[32] Leonardo’s painting is only known from preparatory sketches and several copies of the centre section, of which the best known, and probably least accurate, is by Peter Paul Rubens.[33]
    ^ D’Oggione is known in part for his contemporary copies of the Last Supper.
    ^ It is unknown for what occasion the mechanical lion was made but it is believed to have greeted the king at his entry into Lyon and perhaps was used for the peace talks between the French king and Pope Leo X in Bologna. A conjectural recreation of the lion has been made and is on display in the Museum of Bologna.[39]
    ^ Clos Lucé, also called Cloux, is now a public museum.
    ^ On the day of Leonardo’s death, a royal edict was issued by the king at Saint-Germain-en-Laye, a two-day journey from Clos Lucé. This has been taken as evidence that King François cannot have been present at Leonardo’s deathbed. However, White in Leonardo: The First Scientist points out that the edict was not signed by the king.
    ^ This was a charitable legacy as each of the sixty paupers would have been awarded an established mourner’s fee in the terms of Leonardo’s will.
    ^ The black cloak, of good quality material, was a ready-made item from a clothier, with the fur trim being an additional luxury. The possession of this garment meant that Leonardo’s house keeper could attend his funeral “respectably” attired at no expense to herself.
    ^ Michael Baxandall lists 5 “laudable conditions” or reactions of Mary to the presence and announcement of the angel. These are: Disquiet, Reflection, Inquiry, Submission and Merit. In this painting Mary’s attitude does not comply with any of the accepted traditions.[68]
    ^ The painting, which in the 18th century belonged to Angelica Kauffmann, was later cut up. The two main sections were found in a junk shop and cobbler’s shop and were reunited.[69] It is probable that outer parts of the composition are missing.
    ^ Whether or not Vasari had seen the Mona Lisa is the subject of debate. The opinion that he had not seen the painting is based mainly on the fact that he describes the Mona Lisa as having eyebrows. Daniel Arasse in Leonardo da Vinci discusses the possibility that Leonardo may have painted the figure with eyebrows which were subsequently removed. (They were not fashionable in the mid-16th century.)[17] The analysis of high resolution scans made by Pascal Cotte has revealed that the Mona Lisa had eyebrows and eyelashes which have been subsequently removed.[78]
    ^ Jack Wasserman writes of “the inimitable treatment of the surfaces” of this painting.[79]
    ^ The “Grecian profile” has a continuous straight line from forehead to nose-tip, the bridge of the nose being exceptionally high. It is a feature of many Classical Greek statues.
    ^ Left-handed writers using a split nib or quill pen experience difficulty pushing the pen from left to right across the page.
    ^ This method of organisation minimises of loss of data in the case of pages being mixed up or destroyed.
    References

    ^ a b c Gardner, Helen (1970). Art through the Ages. pp. 450–456.
    ^ a b c Vasari, Boltraffio, Castiglione, “Anonimo” Gaddiano, Berensen, Taine, Fuseli, Rio, Bortolon.
    ^ Rosci, Marco (1977). Leonardo. p. 8.
    ^ John Lichfield, The Moving of the Mona Lisa, The Independent, 2005-04-02 (accessed 2012-03-09)
    ^ Vitruvian Man is referred to as “iconic” at the following websites and many others:Vitruvian Man, Fine Art Classics, Key Images in the History of Science; Curiosity and difference; The Guardian: The Real da Vinci Code
    ^ “The Controversial Replica of Leonardo’s Adding Machine”. Retrieved 2010-12-22.
    ^ Capra, pp.5–6
    ^ a b Vezzosi, Alessandro (1997). Leonardo da Vinci: Renaissance Man.
    ^ a b His birth is recorded in the diary of his paternal grandfather Ser Antonio, as cited by Angela Ottino della Chiesa in Leonardo da Vinci, p. 83
    ^ a b c d e f della Chiesa, Angela Ottino (1967). The Complete Paintings of Leonardo da Vinci. p. 83.
    ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Bortolon, Liana (1967). The Life and Times of Leonardo. London: Paul Hamlyn.
    ^ Rosci, p. 20.
    ^ Rosci, p. 21.
    ^ Brigstoke, Hugh (2001). The Oxford Companion the Western Art. Oxford, ENG, UK.
    ^ Vasari, Giorgio (1568). Lives of the Artists. Penguin Classics. pp. 258–9.
    ^ a b Rosci, p.13
    ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Arasse, Daniel (1998). Leonardo da Vinci.
    ^ Rosci, p.27
    ^ Martindale, Andrew (1972). The Rise of the Artist.
    ^ Vasari, p.258
    ^ della Chiesa, p.88
    ^ Priwer, Shana; Phillips, Cynthia (2006). The Everything Da Vinci Book. p. 245.
    ^ a b Wasserman, Jack (1975). Leonardo da Vinci. pp. 77–78.
    ^ Winternitz, Emanuel (1982). Leonardo Da Vinci As a Musician.
    ^ Rossi, Paolo (2001). The Birth of Modern Science. p. 33.
    ^ “Leonardo’s Letter to Ludovico Sforza”. Leonardo-History. Retrieved 2010-01-05.
    ^ Kemp, Martin (2004). Leonardo.
    ^ Codex II, 95 r, Victoria and Albert Museum, as cited by della Chiesa p. 85
    ^ a b c d della Chiesa, p.85
    ^ Vasari, p.256
    ^ Owen, Richard (2005-01-12). “Found: the studio where Leonardo met Mona Lisa”. London: The Times. Retrieved 2010-01-05.
    ^ Goldscheider, Ludwig (1967). Michelangelo: paintings, sculptures, architecture. Phaidon Press. ISBN 978-0-7148-1314-1.
    ^ della Chiesa, pp.106–107
    ^ Gaetano Milanesi, Epistolario Buonarroti, Florence (1875), as cited by della Chiesa.
    ^ a b c della Chiesa, p.86
    ^ Georges Goyau, François I, Transcribed by Gerald Rossi. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI. Published 1909. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved on 2007-10-04
    ^ Miranda, Salvador (1998–2007). “The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church: Antoine du Prat”. Retrieved 2007-10-04.
    ^ a b Vasari, p.265
    ^ “Reconstruction of Leonardo’s walking lion” (in Italian). Retrieved 2010-01-05.
    ^ Vasari, p.270
    ^ “Leonardo’s will”. Leonardo-history. Retrieved 2007-09-28.
    ^ Mario Lucertini, Ana Millan Gasca, Fernando Nicolo (2004). Technological Concepts and Mathematical Models in the Evolution of Modern Engineering Systems. Birkhäuser. ISBN 978-3-7643-6940-8. Retrieved 2007-10-03.
    ^ a b c d e f Hartt, Frederich (1970). A History of Italian Renaissance Art. pp. 127–333.
    ^ a b c d e f g h i Rosci, Leonardo, chapter 1, the historical setting, pp.9–20
    ^ a b c Brucker, Gene A. (1969). Renaissance Florence.
    ^ a b c d e Rachum, Ilan (1979). The Renaissance, an Illustrated Encyclopedia.
    ^ Piero della Francesca, On Perspective for Painting (De Prospectiva Pingendi)
    ^ Leon Battista Alberti, De Pictura, 1435. On Painting, in English, De Pictura, in Latin[dead link]
    ^ Hartt, pp.391–2
    ^ Williamson, Hugh Ross (1974). Lorenzo the Magnificent.
    ^ Vasari, p.253
    ^ Vasari, p.257
    ^ Eugene Muntz, Leonardo da Vinci Artist, Thinker, and Man of Science (1898), quoted at Leonardo da Vinci’s Ethical Vegetarianism
    ^ Bambach, Carmen (2003). “Leonardo, Left-Handed Draftsman and Writer”. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Archived from the original on November 10, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-18.
    ^ Cartwright Ady, Julia. Beatrice d’Este, Duchess of Milan, 1475–1497. Publisher: J.M. Dent, 1899; Cartwright Ady, Julia. Isabella D’Este, Marchioness of Mantua, 1474–1539. Publisher; J.M. Dent, 1903.
    ^ Sigmund Freud, Eine Kindheitserinnerung des Leonardo da Vinci, (1910)
    ^ “How do we know Leonardo was gay?”. Bnl.gov. 2001-05-03. Retrieved 2011-10-29.
    ^ Michael Rocke, Forbidden Friendships epigraph, p. 148 & N120 p.298
    ^ Rizzo, Alessandra (Feb. 2, 2011). “Art Historian Silvano Vinceti Claims Male Model Behind Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa”. Associated Press. Retrieved November 16, 2011.
    ^ Leonardo, Codex C. 15v, Institut of France. Trans. Richter
    ^ della Chiesa, p.84
    ^ Gross, Tom. “Mona Lisa Goes Topless”. Paintingsdirect.com. Archived from the original on 2007-04-03. Retrieved 2007-09-27.
    ^ Rossiter, Nick (2003-07-04). “Could this be the secret of her smile?”. London: Telegraph.co.UK. Retrieved 2007-10-03.
    ^ By the 1490s Leonardo had already been described as a “Divine” painter. His fame is discussed by Daniel Arasse in Leonardo da Vinci, pp.11–15
    ^ These qualities of Leonardo’s works are discussed by Frederick Hartt in A History of Italian Renaissance Art, pp.387–411.
    ^ della Chiesa, pp. 88, 90
    ^ a b Berti, Luciano (1971). The Uffizi. pp. 59–62.
    ^ Baxandall, Michael (1974). Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy. pp. 49–56.
    ^ a b Wasserman, pp.104–6
    ^ Wasserman, p.108
    ^ “The Mysterious Virgin”. National Gallery, London. Retrieved 2007-09-27.
    ^ Wasserman, p.124
    ^ Vasari, p.263
    ^ Vasari, p.262
    ^ della Chiesa, p.97
    ^ della Chiesa, p.98
    ^ Vasari, p.267
    ^ “The Mona Lisa had brows and lashes”. BBC News. October 22, 2007. Retrieved 2008-02-22.
    ^ Wasserman, p.144
    ^ Vasari, p.266
    ^ della Chiesa, p.103
    ^ Wasserman, p.150
    ^ della Chiesa, p.109
    ^ a b c d e f g Popham, A.E. (1946). The Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci.
    ^ della Chiesa, p.102
    ^ Vasari, p.261
    ^ “Sketches by Leonardo”. Turning the Pages. British Library. Retrieved 2007-09-27.
    ^ Windsor Castle, Royal Library, sheets RL 19073v-19074v and RL 19102 respectively.
    ^ O’Malley; Saunders (1982). Leonardo on the Human Body. New York: Dover Publications.
    ^ della Chiesa, p.117
    ^ Capra, Fritjof. The Science of Leonardo; Inside the Mind of the Genius of the Renaissance. (New York, Doubleday, 2007)
    ^ a b c Kenneth D. Keele, Leonardo da Vinci’s Influence on Renaissance Anatomy, (1964)[1]
    ^ Mason, Stephen F. (1962). A History of the Sciences. New York, NY: Collier Books. p. 550.
    ^ Roger Masters (1996). Machiavelli, Leonardo and the Science of Power.
    ^ Roger Masters (1998). Fortune is a River: Leonardo Da Vinci and Niccolò Machiavelli’s Magnificent Dream to Change the Course of Florentine History.
    ^ “The Leonardo Bridge Project”. Vebjorn-sand.com. Retrieved 2011-10-29.
    ^ Levy, Daniel S. (October 4, 1999). “Dream of the Master”. Time magazine. Archived from the original on 2007-09-12. Retrieved 2007-09-27.
    ^ Leonardo’s Dream Machines
    ^ Vasari, p.255
    ^ Castiglione, Baldassare (1528). Il Cortegiano.
    ^ “Anonimo Gaddiani”, elaborating on Libro di Antonio Billi, 1537–1542
    ^ Fuseli, Henry (1801). Lectures. II.
    ^ Rio, A.E. (1861). L’art chrétien.
    ^ Taine, Hippolyte (1866). Voyag

    • Amadeus / Apr 18 2013 12:26 pm

      nice spam

  340. wetham / Mar 7 2013 7:04 am

    Albert Einstein was born in Ulm, in the Kingdom of Württemberg in the German Empire on 14 March 1879.[10] His father was Hermann Einstein, a salesman and engineer. His mother was Pauline Einstein (née Koch). In 1880, the family moved to Munich, where his father and his uncle founded Elektrotechnische Fabrik J. Einstein & Cie, a company that manufactured electrical equipment based on direct current.[10]
    The Einsteins were non-observant Jews. Albert attended a Catholic elementary school from the age of five for three years. At the age of eight, he was transferred to the Luitpold Gymnasium where he received advanced primary and secondary school education until he left Germany seven years later.[11] Although it has been thought that Einstein had early speech difficulties, this is disputed by the Albert Einstein Archives, and he excelled at the first school that he attended.[12] He was right handed;[12][13] there appears to be no evidence for the widespread popular belief[14] that he was left handed.
    His father once showed him a pocket compass; Einstein realized that there must be something causing the needle to move, despite the apparent “empty space”.[15] As he grew, Einstein built models and mechanical devices for fun and began to show a talent for mathematics.[10] When Einstein was ten years old, Max Talmud (later changed to Max Talmey), a poor Jewish medical student from Poland, was introduced to the Einstein family by his brother, and during weekly visits over the next five years, he gave the boy popular books on science, mathematical texts and philosophical writings. These included Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, and Euclid’s Elements (which Einstein called the “holy little geometry book”).[16][17][fn 1]
    In 1894, his father’s company failed: direct current (DC) lost the War of Currents to alternating current (AC). In search of business, the Einstein family moved to Italy, first to Milan and then, a few months later, to Pavia. When the family moved to Pavia, Einstein stayed in Munich to finish his studies at the Luitpold Gymnasium. His father intended for him to pursue electrical engineering, but Einstein clashed with authorities and resented the school’s regimen and teaching method. He later wrote that the spirit of learning and creative thought were lost in strict rote learning. At the end of December 1894, he travelled to Italy to join his family in Pavia, convincing the school to let him go by using a doctor’s note.[19] It was during his time in Italy that he wrote a short essay with the title “On the Investigation of the State of the Ether in a Magnetic Field.”[20][21]
    In late summer 1895, at the age of sixteen, Einstein sat the entrance examinations for the Swiss Federal Polytechnic in Zurich (later the Eidgenössische Polytechnische Schule). He failed to reach the required standard in several subjects, but obtained exceptional grades in physics and mathematics.[22] On the advice of the Principal of the Polytechnic, he attended the Aargau Cantonal School in Aarau, Switzerland, in 1895-96 to complete his secondary schooling. While lodging with the family of Professor Jost Winteler, he fell in love with Winteler’s daughter, Marie. (Albert’s sister Maja later married Wintelers’ son Paul.)[23] In January 1896, with his father’s approval, he renounced his citizenship in the German Kingdom of Württemberg to avoid military service.[24] (He acquired Swiss citizenship five years later, in February 1901.)[25] In September 1896, he passed the Swiss Matura with mostly good grades (including a top grade of 6 in physics and mathematical subjects, on a scale of 1-6),[26] and, though only seventeen, enrolled in the four-year mathematics and physics teaching diploma program at the ETH Zurich. Marie Winteler moved to Olsberg, Switzerland for a teaching post.
    Einstein’s future wife, Mileva Marić, also enrolled at the Polytechnic that same year, the only woman among the six students in the mathematics and physics section of the teaching diploma course. Over the next few years, Einstein and Marić’s friendship developed into romance, and they read books together on extra-curricular physics in which Einstein was taking an increasing interest. In 1900, Einstein was awarded the Zurich Polytechnic teaching diploma, but Marić failed the examination with a poor grade in the mathematics component, theory of functions.[27] There have been claims that Marić collaborated with Einstein on his celebrated 1905 papers,[28][29] but historians of physics who have studied the issue find no evidence that she made any substantive contributions.[30][31][32][33]
    Marriages and children
    In early 1902, Einstein and Marić had a daughter they named Lieserl, born in Novi Sad where Marić was staying with her parents. Her fate is unknown, but the contents of a letter Einstein wrote to Marić in September 1903 suggest that she was either adopted or died of scarlet fever in infancy.[34][35]
    Einstein and Marić married in January 1903. In May 1904, the couple’s first son, Hans Albert Einstein, was born in Bern, Switzerland. Their second son, Eduard, was born in Zurich in July 1910. In 1914, Einstein moved to Berlin, while his wife remained in Zurich with their sons. They divorced on 14 February 1919, having lived apart for five years.
    Einstein married Elsa Löwenthal on 2 June 1919, after having had a relationship with her since 1912. She was his first cousin maternally and his second cousin paternally. In 1933, they emigrated to the United States. In 1935, Elsa Einstein was diagnosed with heart and kidney problems and died in December 1936.[36]
    Patent office

    Left to right: Conrad Habicht, Maurice Solovine and Einstein, who founded the Olympia Academy
    After graduating, Einstein spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post, but Marcel Grossmann’s father helped him secure a job in Bern,[37] at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property, the patent office, as an assistant examiner.[38] He evaluated patent applications for electromagnetic devices. In 1903, Einstein’s position at the Swiss Patent Office became permanent, although he was passed over for promotion until he “fully mastered machine technology”.[39]
    Much of his work at the patent office related to questions about transmission of electric signals and electrical-mechanical synchronization of time, two technical problems that show up conspicuously in the thought experiments that eventually led Einstein to his radical conclusions about the nature of light and the fundamental connection between space and time.[40]
    With a few friends he met in Bern, Einstein started a small discussion group, self-mockingly named “The Olympia Academy”, which met regularly to discuss science and philosophy. Their readings included the works of Henri Poincaré, Ernst Mach, and David Hume, which influenced his scientific and philosophical outlook.
    Academic career

    Einstein’s official 1921 portrait after receiving the Nobel Prize in Physics.
    In 1901, his paper “Folgerungen aus den Capillaritätserscheinungen” (“Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena”) was published in the prestigious Annalen der Physik.[41][42] On 30 April 1905, Einstein completed his thesis, with Alfred Kleiner, Professor of Experimental Physics, serving as pro-forma advisor. Einstein was awarded a PhD by the University of Zurich. His dissertation was entitled “A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions”.[43][44] That same year, which has been called Einstein’s annus mirabilis (miracle year), he published four groundbreaking papers, on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and the equivalence of mass and energy, which were to bring him to the notice of the academic world.
    By 1908, he was recognized as a leading scientist, and he was appointed lecturer at the University of Bern. The following year, he quit the patent office and the lectureship to take the position of physics docent[45] at the University of Zurich. He became a full professor at Karl-Ferdinand University in Prague in 1911. In 1914, he returned to Germany after being appointed director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics (1914–1932)[46] and a professor at the Humboldt University of Berlin, with a special clause in his contract that freed him from most teaching obligations. He became a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. In 1916, Einstein was appointed president of the German Physical Society (1916–1918).[47][48]
    During 1911, he had calculated that, based on his new theory of general relativity, light from another star would be bent by the Sun’s gravity. That prediction was claimed confirmed by observations made by a British expedition led by Sir Arthur Eddington during the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919. International media reports of this made Einstein world famous. On 7 November 1919, the leading British newspaper The Times printed a banner headline that read: “Revolution in Science – New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown”.[49] Much later, questions were raised whether the measurements had been accurate enough to support Einstein’s theory. In 1980 historians John Earman and Clark Glymour published an analysis suggesting that Eddington had suppressed unfavorable results.[50] The two reviewers found possible flaws in Eddington’s selection of data, but their doubts, although widely quoted and, indeed, now with a “mythical” status almost equivalent to the status of the original observations, have not been confirmed.[51][52] Eddington’s selection from the data seems valid and his team indeed made astronomical measurements verifying the theory.[53]
    In 1921, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, as relativity was considered still somewhat controversial. He also received the Copley Medal from the Royal Society in 1925.
    Travels abroad
    Einstein visited New York City for the first time on 2 April 1921, where he received an official welcome by the Mayor, followed by three weeks of lectures and receptions. He went on to deliver several lectures at Columbia University and Princeton University, and in Washington he accompanied representatives of the National Academy of Science on a visit to the White House. On his return to Europe he was the guest of the British statesman and philosopher Viscount Haldane in London, where he met several renowned scientific, intellectual and political figures, and delivered a lecture at King’s College.[54]
    In 1922, he traveled throughout Asia and later to Palestine, as part of a six-month excursion and speaking tour. His travels included Singapore, Ceylon, and Japan, where he gave a series of lectures to thousands of Japanese. His first lecture in Tokyo lasted four hours, after which he met the emperor and empress at the Imperial Palace where thousands came to watch. Einstein later gave his impressions of the Japanese in a letter to his sons:[55]:307 “Of all the people I have met, I like the Japanese most, as they are modest, intelligent, considerate, and have a feel for art.”[55]:308
    On his return voyage, he also visited Palestine for 12 days in what would become his only visit to that region. “He was greeted with great British pomp, as if he were a head of state rather than a theoretical physicist”, writes Isaacson. This included a cannon salute upon his arrival at the residence of the British high commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel. During one reception given to him, the building was “stormed by throngs who wanted to hear him”. In Einstein’s talk to the audience, he expressed his happiness over the event:
    I consider this the greatest day of my life. Before, I have always found something to regret in the Jewish soul, and that is the forgetfulness of its own people. Today, I have been made happy by the sight of the Jewish people learning to recognize themselves and to make themselves recognized as a force in the world.[56]:308
    Emigration to U.S. in 1933

    Cartoon of Einstein, who has shed his “Pacifism” wings, standing next to a pillar labeled “World Peace.” He is rolling up his sleeves and holding a sword labeled “Preparedness” (circa 1933).
    In February 1933 while on a visit to the United States, Einstein decided not to return to Germany due to the rise to power of the Nazis under Germany’s new chancellor.[57][58] He visited American universities in early 1933 where he undertook his third two-month visiting professorship at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. He and his wife Elsa returned by ship to Belgium at the end of March. During the voyage they were informed that their cottage was raided by the Nazis and his personal sailboat had been confiscated. Upon landing in Antwerp on 28 March, he immediately went to the German consulate where he turned in his passport and formally renounced his German citizenship.[56]
    In early April, he learned that the new German government had passed laws barring Jews from holding any official positions, including teaching at universities.[56] A month later, Einstein’s works were among those targeted by Nazi book burnings, and Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels proclaimed, “Jewish intellectualism is dead.”[56] Einstein also learned that his name was on a list of assassination targets, with a “$5,000 bounty on his head.”[56] One German magazine included him in a list of enemies of the German regime with the phrase, “not yet hanged”.[56]
    He resided in Belgium for some months, before temporarily living in England.[59][60] In a letter to his friend, physicist Max Born, who also emigrated from Germany and lived in England, Einstein wrote, “. . . I must confess that the degree of their brutality and cowardice came as something of a surprise.”[56]

    Portrait taken in 1935 at Princeton
    In October 1933 he returned to the U.S. and took up a position at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, New Jersey, that required his presence for six months each year.[61][62] He was still undecided on his future (he had offers from European universities, including Oxford), but in 1935 he arrived at the decision to remain permanently in the United States and apply for citizenship.[63][64]
    His affiliation with the Institute for Advance Studies would last until his death in 1955.[65] He was one of the four first selected (two of the others being John von Neumann and Kurt Gödel) at the new Institute, where he soon developed a close friendship with Gödel. The two would take long walks together discussing their work. His last assistant was Bruria Kaufman, who later became a renowned physicist. During this period, Einstein tried to develop a unified field theory and to refute the accepted interpretation of quantum physics, both unsuccessfully.
    Other scientists also fled to America. Among them were Nobel laureates and professors of theoretical physics. With so many other Jewish scientists now forced by circumstances to live in America, often working side by side, Einstein wrote to a friend, “For me the most beautiful thing is to be in contact with a few fine Jews—a few millennia of a civilized past do mean something after all.” In another letter he writes, “In my whole life I have never felt so Jewish as now.”[56]
    World War II and the Manhattan Project
    In 1939, a group of Hungarian scientists that included emigre physicist Leó Szilárd attempted to alert Washington of ongoing Nazi atomic bomb research. The group’s warnings were discounted.[66] Einstein and Szilárd, along with other refugees such as Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner, “regarded it as their responsibility to alert Americans to the possibility that German scientists might win the race to build an atomic bomb, and to warn that Hitler would be more than willing to resort to such a weapon.”[55]:630[67] In the summer of 1939, a few months before the beginning of World War II in Europe, Einstein was persuaded to lend his prestige by writing a letter with Szilárd to President Franklin D. Roosevelt to alert him of the possibility. The letter also recommended that the U.S. government pay attention to and become directly involved in uranium research and associated chain reaction research.
    The letter is believed to be “arguably the key stimulus for the U.S. adoption of serious investigations into nuclear weapons on the eve of the U.S. entry into World War II”.[68] President Roosevelt could not take the risk of allowing Hitler to possess atomic bombs first. As a result of Einstein’s letter and his meetings with Roosevelt, the U.S. entered the “race” to develop the bomb, drawing on its “immense material, financial, and scientific resources” to initiate the Manhattan Project. It became the only country to successfully develop an atomic bomb during World War II.
    For Einstein, “war was a disease . . . [and] he called for resistance to war.” But in 1933, after Hitler assumed full power in Germany, “he renounced pacifism altogether . . . In fact, he urged the Western powers to prepare themselves against another German onslaught.”[69]:110 In 1954, a year before his death, Einstein said to his old friend, Linus Pauling, “I made one great mistake in my life — when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification — the danger that the Germans would make them…”[70]
    U.S. citizenship

    Einstein accepting U.S. citizenship, 1940
    Einstein became an American citizen in 1940. Not long after settling into his career at Princeton, he expressed his appreciation of the “meritocracy” in American culture when compared to Europe. According to Isaacson, he recognized the “right of individuals to say and think what they pleased”, without social barriers, and as result, the individual was “encouraged” to be more creative, a trait he valued from his own early education. Einstein writes:
    What makes the new arrival devoted to this country is the democratic trait among the people. No one humbles himself before another person or class. . . American youth has the good fortune not to have its outlook troubled by outworn traditions.[56]:432
    As a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) at Princeton who campaigned for the civil rights of African Americans, Einstein corresponded with civil rights activist W. E. B. Du Bois, and in 1946 Einstein called racism America’s “worst disease”.[71] He later stated, “Race prejudice has unfortunately become an American tradition which is uncritically handed down from one generation to the next. The only remedies are enlightenment and education”.[72]

    Einstein in 1947
    During the final stage of his life, Einstein transitioned to a vegetarian lifestyle,[73] arguing that “the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind”.[74]
    After the death of Israel’s first president, Chaim Weizmann, in November 1952, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion offered Einstein the position of President of Israel, a mostly ceremonial post.[75] The offer was presented by Israel’s ambassador in Washington, Abba Eban, who explained that the offer “embodies the deepest respect which the Jewish people can repose in any of its sons”.[55]:522 However, Einstein declined, and wrote in his response that he was “deeply moved”, and “at once saddened and ashamed” that he could not accept it:
    All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official function. I am the more distressed over these circumstances because my relationship with the Jewish people became my strongest human tie once I achieved complete clarity about our precarious position among the nations of the world.[55]:522[75][76]
    Death

    The New York World-Telegram announces Einstein’s death on 18 April 1955.
    On 17 April 1955, Albert Einstein experienced internal bleeding caused by the rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, which had previously been reinforced surgically by Dr. Rudolph Nissen in 1948.[77] He took the draft of a speech he was preparing for a television appearance commemorating the State of Israel’s seventh anniversary with him to the hospital, but he did not live long enough to complete it.[78] Einstein refused surgery, saying: “I want to go when I want. It is tasteless to prolong life artificially. I have done my share, it is time to go. I will do it elegantly.”[79] He died in Princeton Hospital early the next morning at the age of 76, having continued to work until near the end.
    During the autopsy, the pathologist of Princeton Hospital, Thomas Stoltz Harvey, removed Einstein’s brain for preservation without the permission of his family, in the hope that the neuroscience of the future would be able to discover what made Einstein so intelligent.[80] Einstein’s remains were cremated and his ashes were scattered at an undisclosed location.[81][82]
    In his lecture at Einstein’s memorial, nuclear physicist Robert Oppenheimer summarized his impression of him as a person: “He was almost wholly without sophistication and wholly without worldliness . . . There was always with him a wonderful purity at once childlike and profoundly stubborn.”[69]
    Scientific career

    Albert Einstein in 1904

    The photoelectric effect. Incoming photons on the left strike a metal plate (bottom), and eject electrons, depicted as flying off to the right.
    Throughout his life, Einstein published hundreds of books and articles.[8][10] In addition to the work he did by himself he also collaborated with other scientists on additional projects including the Bose–Einstein statistics, the Einstein refrigerator and others.[83]
    1905 – Annus Mirabilis papers
    Main articles: Annus Mirabilis papers, Photoelectric effect, Special theory of relativity, and Mass–energy equivalence
    The Annus Mirabilis papers are four articles pertaining to the photoelectric effect (which gave rise to quantum theory), Brownian motion, the special theory of relativity, and E = mc2 that Albert Einstein published in the Annalen der Physik scientific journal in 1905. These four works contributed substantially to the foundation of modern physics and changed views on space, time, and matter. The four papers are:
    Title (translated) Area of focus Received Published Significance
    On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light Photoelectric effect 18 March 9 June Resolved an unsolved puzzle by suggesting that energy is exchanged only in discrete amounts (quanta).[84] This idea was pivotal to the early development of quantum theory.[85]
    On the Motion of Small Particles Suspended in a Stationary Liquid, as Required by the Molecular Kinetic Theory of Heat Brownian motion 11 May 18 July Explained empirical evidence for the atomic theory, supporting the application of statistical physics.
    On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies Special relativity 30 June 26 September Reconciled Maxwell’s equations for electricity and magnetism with the laws of mechanics by introducing major changes to mechanics close to the speed of light, resulting from analysis based on empirical evidence that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer.[86] Discredited the concept of a “luminiferous ether.”[87]
    Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content? Matter–energy equivalence 27 September 21 November Equivalence of matter and energy, E = mc2 (and by implication, the ability of gravity to “bend” light), the existence of “rest energy”, and the basis of nuclear energy.
    Thermodynamic fluctuations and statistical physics
    Main articles: Statistical mechanics, thermal fluctuations, and statistical physics
    Albert Einstein’s first paper[88] submitted in 1900 to Annalen der Physik was on capillary attraction. It was published in 1901 with the title “Folgerungen aus den Kapillarität Erscheinungen,” which translates as “Conclusions from the capillarity phenomena”. Two papers he published in 1902–1903 (thermodynamics) attempted to interpret atomic phenomena from a statistical point of view. These papers were the foundation for the 1905 paper on Brownian motion, which showed that Brownian movement can be construed as firm evidence that molecules exist. His research in 1903 and 1904 was mainly concerned with the effect of finite atomic size on diffusion phenomena.[88]
    General principles
    He articulated the principle of relativity. This was understood by Hermann Minkowski to be a generalization of rotational invariance from space to space-time. Other principles postulated by Einstein and later vindicated are the principle of equivalence and the principle of adiabatic invariance of the quantum number.
    Theory of relativity and E = mc²
    Main article: History of special relativity
    Einstein’s “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper” (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”) was received on 30 June 1905 and published 26 September of that same year. It reconciles Maxwell’s equations for electricity and magnetism with the laws of mechanics, by introducing major changes to mechanics close to the speed of light. This later became known as Einstein’s special theory of relativity.
    Consequences of this include the time-space frame of a moving body appearing to slow down and contract (in the direction of motion) when measured in the frame of the observer. This paper also argued that the idea of a luminiferous aether – one of the leading theoretical entities in physics at the time – was superfluous.[89]
    In his paper on mass–energy equivalence Einstein produced E = mc2 from his special relativity equations.[90] Einstein’s 1905 work on relativity remained controversial for many years, but was accepted by leading physicists, starting with Max Planck.[91][92]
    Photons and energy quanta
    Main articles: Photon and Quantum
    In a 1905 paper,[93] Einstein postulated that light itself consists of localized particles (quanta). Einstein’s light quanta were nearly universally rejected by all physicists, including Max Planck and Niels Bohr. This idea only became universally accepted in 1919, with Robert Millikan’s detailed experiments on the photoelectric effect, and with the measurement of Compton scattering.
    Einstein concluded that each wave of frequency f is associated with a collection of photons with energy hf each, where h is Planck’s constant. He does not say much more, because he is not sure how the particles are related to the wave. But he does suggest that this idea would explain certain experimental results, notably the photoelectric effect.[94]
    Quantized atomic vibrations
    Main article: Einstein solid
    In 1907 Einstein proposed a model of matter where each atom in a lattice structure is an independent harmonic oscillator. In the Einstein model, each atom oscillates independently – a series of equally spaced quantized states for each oscillator. Einstein was aware that getting the frequency of the actual oscillations would be different, but he nevertheless proposed this theory because it was a particularly clear demonstration that quantum mechanics could solve the specific heat problem in classical mechanics. Peter Debye refined this model.[95]
    Adiabatic principle and action-angle variables
    Main article: Old quantum theory
    Throughout the 1910s, quantum mechanics expanded in scope to cover many different systems. After Ernest Rutherford discovered the nucleus and proposed that electrons orbit like planets, Niels Bohr was able to show that the same quantum mechanical postulates introduced by Planck and developed by Einstein would explain the discrete motion of electrons in atoms, and the periodic table of the elements.
    Einstein contributed to these developments by linking them with the 1898 arguments Wilhelm Wien had made. Wien had shown that the hypothesis of adiabatic invariance of a thermal equilibrium state allows all the blackbody curves at different temperature to be derived from one another by a simple shifting process. Einstein noted in 1911 that the same adiabatic principle shows that the quantity which is quantized in any mechanical motion must be an adiabatic invariant. Arnold Sommerfeld identified this adiabatic invariant as the action variable of classical mechanics. The law that the action variable is quantized was a basic principle of the quantum theory as it was known between 1900 and 1925.[citation needed]
    Wave–particle duality

    Einstein during his visit to the United States
    Main article: Wave–particle duality
    Although the patent office promoted Einstein to Technical Examiner Second Class in 1906, he had not given up on academia. In 1908, he became a privatdozent at the University of Bern.[96] In “über die Entwicklung unserer Anschauungen über das Wesen und die Konstitution der Strahlung” (“The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation”), on the quantization of light, and in an earlier 1909 paper, Einstein showed that Max Planck’s energy quanta must have well-defined momenta and act in some respects as independent, point-like particles. This paper introduced the photon concept (although the name photon was introduced later by Gilbert N. Lewis in 1926) and inspired the notion of wave–particle duality in quantum mechanics.
    Theory of critical opalescence
    Main article: Critical opalescence
    Einstein returned to the problem of thermodynamic fluctuations, giving a treatment of the density variations in a fluid at its critical point. Ordinarily the density fluctuations are controlled by the second derivative of the free energy with respect to the density. At the critical point, this derivative is zero, leading to large fluctuations. The effect of density fluctuations is that light of all wavelengths is scattered, making the fluid look milky white. Einstein relates this to Raleigh scattering, which is what happens when the fluctuation size is much smaller than the wavelength, and which explains why the sky is blue.[97] Einstein quantitatively derived critical opalescence from a treatment of density fluctuations, and demonstrated how both the effect and Rayleigh scattering originate from the atomistic constitution of matter.
    Zero-point energy
    Main article: Zero-point energy
    Einstein’s physical intuition led him to note that Planck’s oscillator energies had an incorrect zero point. He modified Planck’s hypothesis by stating that the lowest energy state of an oscillator is equal to 1⁄2hf, to half the energy spacing between levels. This argument, which was made in 1913 in collaboration with Otto Stern, was based on the thermodynamics of a diatomic molecule which can split apart into two free atoms.
    General relativity and the Equivalence Principle
    Main article: History of general relativity
    See also: Principle of equivalence, Theory of relativity, and Einstein field equations

    Eddington’s photograph of a solar eclipse.
    General relativity (GR) is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Einstein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from the warping of space and time by those masses. General relativity has developed into an essential tool in modern astrophysics. It provides the foundation for the current understanding of black holes, regions of space where gravitational attraction is so strong that not even light can escape.
    As Albert Einstein later said, the reason for the development of general relativity was that the preference of inertial motions within special relativity was unsatisfactory, while a theory which from the outset prefers no state of motion (even accelerated ones) should appear more satisfactory.[98] So in 1908 he published an article on acceleration under special relativity. In that article, he argued that free fall is really inertial motion, and that for a freefalling observer the rules of special relativity must apply. This argument is called the Equivalence principle. In the same article, Einstein also predicted the phenomenon of gravitational time dilation. In 1911, Einstein published another article expanding on the 1907 article, in which additional effects such as the deflection of light by massive bodies were predicted.
    Hole argument and Entwurf theory
    Main article: Hole argument
    While developing general relativity, Einstein became confused about the gauge invariance in the theory. He formulated an argument that led him to conclude that a general relativistic field theory is impossible. He gave up looking for fully generally covariant tensor equations, and searched for equations that would be invariant under general linear transformations only.
    In June 1913 the Entwurf (“draft”) theory was the result of these investigations. As its name suggests, it was a sketch of a theory, with the equations of motion supplemented by additional gauge fixing conditions. Simultaneously less elegant and more difficult than general relativity, after more than two years of intensive work Einstein abandoned the theory in November 1915 after realizing that the hole argument was mistaken.[99]
    Cosmology
    Main article: Cosmology
    In 1917, Einstein applied the General theory of relativity to model the structure of the universe as a whole. He wanted the universe to be eternal and unchanging, but this type of universe is not consistent with relativity. To fix this, Einstein modified the general theory by introducing a new notion, the cosmological constant. With a positive cosmological constant, the universe could be an eternal static sphere.[100]

    Einstein in his office at the University of Berlin.
    Einstein believed a spherical static universe is philosophically preferred, because it would obey Mach’s principle. He had shown that general relativity incorporates Mach’s principle to a certain extent in frame dragging by gravitomagnetic fields, but he knew that Mach’s idea would not work if space goes on forever. In a closed universe, he believed that Mach’s principle would hold. Mach’s principle has generated much controversy over the years.
    Modern quantum theory
    Main article: Schrödinger equation
    Einstein was displeased with quantum theory and mechanics, despite its acceptance by other physicists, stating “God doesn’t play with dice.” As Einstein passed away at the age of 76 he still would not accept quantum theory.[101] In 1917, at the height of his work on relativity, Einstein published an article in Physikalische Zeitschrift that proposed the possibility of stimulated emission, the physical process that makes possible the maser and the laser.[102] This article showed that the statistics of absorption and emission of light would only be consistent with Planck’s distribution law if the emission of light into a mode with n photons would be enhanced statistically compared to the emission of light into an empty mode. This paper was enormously influential in the later development of quantum mechanics, because it was the first paper to show that the statistics of atomic transitions had simple laws. Einstein discovered Louis de Broglie’s work, and supported his ideas, which were received skeptically at first. In another major paper from this era, Einstein gave a wave equation for de Broglie waves, which Einstein suggested was the Hamilton–Jacobi equation of mechanics. This paper would inspire Schrödinger’s work of 1926.
    Bose–Einstein statistics
    Main article: Bose–Einstein condensation
    In 1924, Einstein received a description of a statistical model from Indian physicist Satyendra Nath Bose, based on a counting method that assumed that light could be understood as a gas of indistinguishable particles. Einstein noted that Bose’s statistics applied to some atoms as well as to the proposed light particles, and submitted his translation of Bose’s paper to the Zeitschrift für Physik. Einstein also published his own articles describing the model and its implications, among them the Bose–Einstein condensate phenomenon that some particulates should appear at very low temperatures.[103] It was not until 1995 that the first such condensate was produced experimentally by Eric Allin Cornell and Carl Wieman using ultra-cooling equipment built at the NIST–JILA laboratory at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[104] Bose–Einstein statistics are now used to describe the behaviors of any assembly of bosons. Einstein’s sketches for this project may be seen in the Einstein Archive in the library of the Leiden University.[83]
    Energy momentum pseudotensor
    Main article: Stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor
    General relativity includes a dynamical spacetime, so it is difficult to see how to identify the conserved energy and momentum. Noether’s theorem allows these quantities to be determined from a Lagrangian with translation invariance, but general covariance makes translation invariance into something of a gauge symmetry. The energy and momentum derived within general relativity by Noether’s presecriptions do not make a real tensor for this reason.
    Einstein argued that this is true for fundamental reasons, because the gravitational field could be made to vanish by a choice of coordinates. He maintained that the non-covariant energy momentum pseudotensor was in fact the best description of the energy momentum distribution in a gravitational field. This approach has been echoed by Lev Landau and Evgeny Lifshitz, and others, and has become standard.
    The use of non-covariant objects like pseudotensors was heavily criticized in 1917 by Erwin Schrödinger and others.
    Unified field theory
    Main article: Classical unified field theories
    Following his research on general relativity, Einstein entered into a series of attempts to generalize his geometric theory of gravitation to include electromagnetism as another aspect of a single entity. In 1950, he described his “unified field theory” in a Scientific American article entitled “On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation”.[105] Although he continued to be lauded for his work, Einstein became increasingly isolated in his research, and his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. In his pursuit of a unification of the fundamental forces, Einstein ignored some mainstream developments in physics, most notably the strong and weak nuclear forces, which were not well understood until many years after his death. Mainstream physics, in turn, largely ignored Einstein’s approaches to unification. Einstein’s dream of unifying other laws of physics with gravity motivates modern quests for a theory of everything and in particular string theory, where geometrical fields emerge in a unified quantum-mechanical setting.
    Wormholes
    Main article: Wormhole
    Einstein collaborated with others to produce a model of a wormhole. His motivation was to model elementary particles with charge as a solution of gravitational field equations, in line with the program outlined in the paper “Do Gravitational Fields play an Important Role in the Constitution of the Elementary Particles?”. These solutions cut and pasted Schwarzschild black holes to make a bridge between two patches.
    If one end of a wormhole was positively charged, the other end would be negatively charged. These properties led Einstein to believe that pairs of particles and antiparticles could be described in this way.
    Einstein–Cartan theory
    Main article: Einstein–Cartan theory
    In order to incorporate spinning point particles into general relativity, the affine connection needed to be generalized to include an antisymmetric part, called the torsion. This modification was made by Einstein and Cartan in the 1920s.
    Equations of motion
    Main article: Einstein–Infeld–Hoffmann equations
    The theory of general relativity has a fundamental law – the Einstein equations which describe how space curves, the geodesic equation which describes how particles move may be derived from the Einstein equations.
    Since the equations of general relativity are non-linear, a lump of energy made out of pure gravitational fields, like a black hole, would move on a trajectory which is determined by the Einstein equations themselves, not by a new law. So Einstein proposed that the path of a singular solution, like a black hole, would be determined to be a geodesic from general relativity itself.
    This was established by Einstein, Infeld, and Hoffmann for pointlike objects without angular momentum, and by Roy Kerr for spinning objects.
    Other investigations
    Main article: Einstein’s unsuccessful investigations
    Einstein conducted other investigations that were unsuccessful and abandoned. These pertain to force, superconductivity, gravitational waves, and other research. Please see the main article for details.
    Collaboration with other scientists

    The 1927 Solvay Conference in Brussels, a gathering of the world’s top physicists. Einstein in the center.
    In addition to longtime collaborators Leopold Infeld, Nathan Rosen, Peter Bergmann and others, Einstein also had some one-shot collaborations with various scientists.
    Einstein–de Haas experiment
    Main article: Einstein–de Haas effect
    Einstein and De Haas demonstrated that magnetization is due to the motion of electrons, nowadays known to be the spin. In order to show this, they reversed the magnetization in an iron bar suspended on a torsion pendulum. They confirmed that this leads the bar to rotate, because the electron’s angular momentum changes as the magnetization changes. This experiment needed to be sensitive, because the angular momentum associated with electrons is small, but it definitively established that electron motion of some kind is responsible for magnetization.
    Schrödinger gas model
    Einstein suggested to Erwin Schrödinger that he might be able to reproduce the statistics of a Bose–Einstein gas by considering a box. Then to each possible quantum motion of a particle in a box associate an independent harmonic oscillator. Quantizing these oscillators, each level will have an integer occupation number, which will be the number of particles in it.
    This formulation is a form of second quantization, but it predates modern quantum mechanics. Erwin Schrödinger applied this to derive the thermodynamic properties of a semiclassical ideal gas. Schrödinger urged Einstein to add his name as co-author, although Einstein declined the invitation.[106]
    Einstein refrigerator
    Main article: Einstein refrigerator
    In 1926, Einstein and his former student Leó Szilárd co-invented (and in 1930, patented) the Einstein refrigerator. This absorption refrigerator was then revolutionary for having no moving parts and using only heat as an input.[107] On 11 November 1930, U.S. Patent 1,781,541 was awarded to Albert Einstein and Leó Szilárd for the refrigerator. Their invention was not immediately put into commercial production, as the most promising of their patents were quickly bought up by the Swedish company Electrolux to protect its refrigeration technology from competition.[108]
    Bohr versus Einstein
    Main article: Bohr–Einstein debates

    Einstein and Niels Bohr, 1925
    The Bohr–Einstein debates were a series of public disputes about quantum mechanics between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr who were two of its founders. Their debates are remembered because of their importance to the philosophy of science.[109][110][111]
    Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox
    Main article: EPR paradox
    In 1935, Einstein returned to the question of quantum mechanics. He considered how a measurement on one of two entangled particles would affect the other. He noted, along with his collaborators, that by performing different measurements on the distant particle, either of position or momentum, different properties of the entangled partner could be discovered without disturbing it in any way.
    He then used a hypothesis of local realism to conclude that the other particle had these properties already determined. The principle he proposed is that if it is possible to determine what the answer to a position or momentum measurement would be, without in any way disturbing the particle, then the particle actually has values of position or momentum.
    This principle distilled the essence of Einstein’s objection to quantum mechanics. As a physical principle, it was shown to be incorrect when the Aspect experiment of 1982 confirmed Bell’s theorem, which had been promulgated in 1964.
    Political and religious views

    Main articles: Albert Einstein’s political views and Albert Einstein’s religious views

    Albert Einstein, seen here with his wife Elsa Einstein and Zionist leaders, including future President of Israel Chaim Weizmann, his wife Dr. Vera Weizmann, Menahem Ussishkin, and Ben-Zion Mossinson on arrival in New York City in 1921.
    Albert Einstein’s political view was in favor of socialism;[112][113] his political views emerged publicly in the middle of the 20th century due to his fame and reputation for genius. Einstein offered to and was called on to give judgments and opinions on matters often unrelated to theoretical physics or mathematics.[114]
    Einstein’s views about religious belief have been collected from interviews and original writings. These views covered Judaism, theological determinism, agnosticism, and humanism. He also wrote much about ethical culture, opting for Spinoza’s god over belief in a personal god.[115]
    Love of music

    Einstein developed an appreciation of music at an early age. His mother played the piano reasonably well and wanted her son to learn the violin, not only to instill in him a love of music but also to help him assimilate German culture. According to conductor Leon Botstein, Einstein is said to have begun playing when he was five, but did not enjoy it at that age.[116]
    When he turned thirteen, however, he discovered the violin sonatas of Mozart. “Einstein fell in love” with Mozart’s music, notes Botstein, and learned to play music more willingly. According to Einstein, he taught himself to play by “ever practicing systematically,” adding that “Love is a better teacher than a sense of duty.”[116] At age seventeen, he was heard by a school examiner in Aarau as he played Beethoven’s violin sonatas, the examiner stating afterward that his playing was “remarkable and revealing of ‘great insight.’” What struck the examiner, writes Botstein, was that Einstein “displayed a deep love of the music, a quality that was and remains in short supply. Music possessed an unusual meaning for this student.”[116]
    Botstein notes that music assumed a pivotal and permanent role in Einstein’s life from that period on. Although the idea of becoming a professional himself was not on his mind at any time, among those with whom Einstein played chamber music were a few professionals, and he performed for private audiences and friends. Chamber music also became a regular part of his social life while living in Bern, Zurich, and Berlin, where he played with Max Planck and his son, among others. In 1931, while engaged in research at California Institute of Technology, he visited the Zoellner family conservatory in Los Angeles and played some of Beethoven and Mozart’s works with members of the Zoellner Quartet, recently retired from two decades of acclaimed touring all across the United States; Einstein later presented the family patriarch with an autographed photograph as a memento.[117][118] Near the end of his life, when the young Juilliard Quartet visited him in Princeton, he played his violin with them; although they slowed the tempo to accommodate his lesser technical abilities, Botstein notes the quartet was “impressed by Einstein’s level of coordination and intonation.”[116]
    Non-scientific legacy

    While travelling, Einstein wrote daily to his wife Elsa and adopted stepdaughters Margot and Ilse. The letters were included in the papers bequeathed to The Hebrew University. Margot Einstein permitted the personal letters to be made available to the public, but requested that it not be done until twenty years after her death (she died in 1986[119]). Barbara Wolff, of The Hebrew University’s Albert Einstein Archives, told the BBC that there are about 3,500 pages of private correspondence written between 1912 and 1955.[120]
    Einstein bequeathed the royalties from use of his image to The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Corbis, successor to The Roger Richman Agency, licenses the use of his name and associated imagery, as agent for the university.[121]
    In popular culture

    Main article: Albert Einstein in popular culture
    In the period before World War II, Einstein was so well known in America that he would be stopped on the street by people wanting him to explain “that theory”. He finally figured out a way to handle the incessant inquiries. He told his inquirers “Pardon me, sorry! Always I am mistaken for Professor Einstein.”[122]
    Einstein has been the subject of or inspiration for many novels, films, plays, and works of music.[123] He is a favorite model for depictions of mad scientists and absent-minded professors; his expressive face and distinctive hairstyle have been widely copied and exaggerated. Time magazine’s Frederic Golden wrote that Einstein was “a cartoonist’s dream come true”.[124]

    • marco / Jun 14 2013 11:49 am

      that was a long read……..too long

  341. All you do is waisting energy... / Mar 4 2013 3:33 pm

    “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

    - Eleanor Roosevelt

  342. WG / Feb 27 2013 4:51 am

    Bullshit, especially the comment on einstein.

  343. Herr Krask / Feb 22 2013 8:18 am

    Your article reeks with contempt and perhaps even envy.

    • Anonymous / Mar 6 2013 7:38 am

      Don’t forget Jealousy.

      • Anonymous / Apr 4 2013 9:47 pm

        Do you not know what envy means?

  344. Adam Washington / Feb 19 2013 5:49 pm

    lol looked up hawking being over rated…. but he has done a couple things.. but saying einstein is over rated???? wow.. do you realize that most of our electronics… all of our GPS, satellite systems, communications are based on the theory of relativity? that gps clocks in satellites have to adjust their clocks 7microseconds each day, because the theory of relativity? that things he predicted a hundred years ago, are still being proven true today?

    he wasnt a GREAT mathematician, but he was darn good, and for your information only about 3 were “good enough” to do the math on his theory of relativity. so ya… was pretty tough math.

    so itsnobody, i just gave you about 10 billion items that we use now, that use einsteins theories… and yet you say hes over rated?

  345. Jake / Feb 18 2013 10:38 pm

    Look, Michio Kaku is one of the greatest physicists of all time. Einstein is the greatest. Everything Einstein said is now being tested and being proven as true. This article is a lie. Not a single thing is accurate. Please don’t believe it.

  346. Otis / Feb 18 2013 8:45 pm

    Oh my goodness, and all this time I thought Einstein was kind of smart. Boy you sure set the record straight. Good for you. Great job. Way to be. You the man. Pythagoras? Pfffffft, total ignoramus and a hack. I am so glad this page is here to let the whole world know, what you’ve known all along. Damn man, you should write a book or something. Call it “I’m smarter than Einstein. No, it’s True” by Iam Cheesedick. It would sooo sell.

  347. Sam / Feb 14 2013 10:15 pm

    Do you envy the fact of how great most of these people are?

    I have never known anyone to think that Bill Gates invented the computer.

    And for michio kaku and Einstein how are they overrated? What you say is a load of crap. Are you angry that you will never become a genius like these men and just become an Internet blogger?
    Don’t bother writing back because I will never come back to this site.

  348. Chris / Feb 11 2013 11:00 pm

    You lack a great deal of intelligence and some of your information is wrong. Not only that, you are not even mentioning major contributions some of these people have made. Your biggest wrongs to me are Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, and Michio Kaku. I could go on into detail, but I will leave it at that you have no clue what you are talking about on most of these men. Do a little research maybe you will learn and not publish such a piece of crap on the internet.

  349. Anonymous / Feb 11 2013 6:46 pm

    To the author, you are an idiot.

  350. Daaaaanah (@LthrandLace) / Feb 6 2013 12:25 am

    Sir, unless you Doctor Who via Tardis your arse back to the past and gave an IQ test to all those you threw underneath the bus, shut the hell up.

    • Anonymous / Feb 8 2013 5:55 pm

      It’s TARDIS. Capitalized because it is an anagram.

      • Tess Broizman / Feb 24 2013 8:01 pm

        Okay, we all know it is an anagram, don’t get your panties in a twist. Just saying, nobody capitalizes the whole word so go be a grammar Nazi somewhere else. And as for the author of this gigantic piece of poop roaming the internets, well at least I applaud you on the Thomas Edison part, Tesla is far a better scientist than all of these guy combined. Just pointing out, these ARE all guys.

    • itsnobody / Feb 9 2013 3:30 am

      I don’t care much about IQ

  351. Anonymous / Jan 29 2013 9:54 pm

    You are not very smart.

    • itsnobody / Feb 9 2013 3:36 am

      Well then, by what reasoning have you concluded this?

  352. Jon / Jan 27 2013 1:21 am

    bullshit

  353. Anonymous / Jan 26 2013 9:41 pm

    For God’s sake, people, how many times do I have to say this? The English word ‘genius’ is derived fron the Latin ‘genius, genii’, meaning spirit or life force. The noun ‘genius’ is first declension masculine, and the nominative plural is therefore ‘genii’. When a noun is taken from Latin into English, the plural used is frequently (and in this case) the nominative. Therefore, the correct plural of genius, when used to refer to a person or persons of great intellect, is genii. Learn it. Use it. Love it.

    • Anonymous / Feb 10 2013 12:00 pm

      You don’t have to say it any times. Shut up.

    • Maddog / Mar 1 2013 2:22 am

      Words change meanings over time. It is funny how people do not understand this.

      Watched Pulp Fiction last night and Fishburne tells the guy to get his wallet out of the bag.
      He then says, “Yeah, Thats my Mother Fucker”

      I don’t believe he believe that he kept his money in something that fucked his mother.(not a great example, but one nonetheless)

      It’s like black people who used to say they couldn’t be racist(because they falsely tried to speak for every black and claimed they had no wealth) This is still claimed today by many.
      The word Racist means hating on other races to 99% of people. So that is what it means now and to warp it into something else if futile.

      Same way if pig shit becomes peoples favorite monetary system. Pig Shit will then become Money.

      May sound stupid but that is how life works.

  354. vanessa / Jan 26 2013 4:52 pm

    this author must be crazy…. obviously all of these men are geniuses but the biggest shock to this list is pythagoras he basically invented music amongst many other areas …. yup totally overrated human right there. WTF is this author on… seriously.

  355. Anonymous / Jan 25 2013 6:20 pm

    Ha ha! Ha! I’m sorry, I just can’t stop laughing! Ha ha! The guy’s an idiot! Ha ha ha ha ha! Wow. So not worth my time, but I haven’t anything better to do, and this amuses me so very, very much! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

  356. John / Jan 25 2013 8:43 am

    Btw asshole, the story that Newton solved the Brachistochrone problem overnight (not in a few hours I might add), is widely regarded by physicists as a myth. In fact, Newton’s laws are completely unsuitable for solving this problem, and as such, have been replaced by a far more complete set of mechanics, originated by Lagrange and Hamilton.

    And if you claim that Einstein theories are ‘copies’ of earlier ones by Maxwell and Reinnmann (Nonsense), then you must surely admit that Newtons laws (despite flimsy) were developed earlier by Galileo, Hugyens, Descartes. The only original law Newton devised was his 3rd, which has since been greatly modified. And there is also evidence that Liebnitz, not Newton developed calculus first.

    Newton by all means was a great genius, but to discredit the work of similarly great geniuses due to elements of unoriginality in their theories is idiocy. You’re lack of knowledge on this subject is obvious.

    • Anonymous / Jan 25 2013 6:18 pm

      You’re. Lol.

    • Anonymous / Mar 22 2013 9:17 pm

      Newton plagarized material of his peers and was a fucking narc to boot.

  357. Anonymous / Jan 22 2013 9:16 am

    Your claim that Archimedes is ignored by the media is ridiculous.

    Also, as Anthony H. said, you can’t judge a person’s mind by his IQ, or in your case, his/her supposed IQ.

    • Anonymous / Jan 26 2013 9:44 pm

      A question. Given that the author is so obsessed with IQ, what is its?

      • itsnobody / Feb 9 2013 3:37 am

        But I’m not, the ones who are obsessed with IQ are the others who post genius lists based on IQ

  358. João / Jan 20 2013 12:12 pm

    You shouldn’t take inventions out of its context, this takes out all of the merits of inventors. Da Vinci hellicopter for example was invented in a time where anyone couldn’t think of anything like this, it was way ahead. Saying an old invention is stupid based on todays society, its even more stupid than the invention itself.

  359. Anish nair / Jan 18 2013 2:46 pm

    I think adolf hitler ,mahatma gandhi buddha are the real geniouses b’coz who can handle the situations with their judgement they are geniouses

  360. S / Jan 17 2013 11:09 pm

    You must have the same level of iq as the screen your reading all your bullshit from! The fact that your narrowminded opinion of what a genuis actually only iq based, its like you would solve equations without constant numbers you dumb idiot! Einstein is the greatest theoretical scientist of all time becaus he figuerd out some of the deepest insights of the universe actually works! The special theory of relativity. Even after his death his “biggest blunder” was instead proven to be true with modern observation! And regarding the media guys, they are expanding the minds and understanding of the public wich is just as important as making scientific progress. Something an autistic retard like you will never understand so stfu! Quit using the internet, it is only good for smart people to use!

  361. Anonymous / Jan 16 2013 7:35 am

    if u are really that good to critisise da vinci about his inventions, try making a flying helicopter from scratch. WITHOUT ENGINES

  362. Anthony H. / Jan 12 2013 3:06 pm

    Nonsense. First learn formal English, then critize with your narrowed opinion. “Could of had” spells “could’ve had.” If you are trying to write a semi formal text like the one above, then you must avoid contractions. i.e. “could have had.” Completely uneducated, and futile on your part.

    • Anon E. Maus / Feb 18 2013 8:35 pm

      Herpsense. Herp derp herpal derplish, then derpicise, with your herped derp. “Could of had” herps “could’ve had”. Herp derp herp derping to herp a derp herpal derp herp derp herp derp above, herp derp must herp derptractions. i.e. “could have had” Herpletely underpucated, and herp derp herp derp. By the way you misspelled “critize” jerk off.

  363. Anonymous / Jan 11 2013 10:21 pm

    I think you’re wrong about Gates. If you look at his list of accomplishments before he started Microsoft, it’s pretty impressive. He scored 1590 on the SAT, at a time when “[a] score above 1580 was equivalent to the 99.9995 percentile.” (Wikipedia) Then he took the infamously difficult Math 55 course at Harvard, where he claims he first realized that there are people smarter than him. In his sophomore year he cracked an unsolved problem in combinatorics which lead to a paper on pancake sorting. So he’s shown he tests well, can take the most difficult classes out there and do novel research as a sophomore. Based on this, there’s no reason to believe he couldn’t have been a top math or CS professor if he wanted.

    Of course, he then goes on to found the most dominant tech company of its time and become the richest person in the world, but that’s just all because of luck and having rich parents, right?

    • Anonymous / Mar 22 2013 9:11 pm

      Too bad he can’t find his soul.

  364. 11cheungc3 / Jan 11 2013 11:35 am

    I agree to every single one of them apart from Stephen Hawking, Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci and possibly Bill Gates. Einstein and LDV had very pioneering concepts about the world around us.

    I argue that the leap from Aristotle to newton was less significant than Newton to Einstein. The concept of absolute space time has been a constant for like 2000 years, while Einstein just completely threw it in the bin, as if that wasn’t enough, he also modeled gravity in a way that has to be mostly original as he described gravity as the warping of space time. Steven Hawking is a genius in the way he is able to perform amazing mental calculations in his brain as well as pioneering in the study of black holes despite his physical abilities.

    Leonardo Da Vinci had other signs of genius. The statement that he did not learn anything quickly is inaccurate at its mildest and best described as misleading. As he wasn’t born legitimately, he had to learn greek and latin himself to understand ancient greek knowledge. he was able to write with both hands as well. He also conceived ideas like helicopters and war machines way ahead of his time. Lastly, he pioneered in his study of perspectives in arts. And dont forget IQ is measured relative to the population then, as it measures how many standard deviations you are from the general population. His talents in many areas, like art and science, is enough to be considered extremely smart, if not prodigal by modern day standards, let alone in the Renaissance Times.

    I agree that Bill Gates might be overrated. Although he did not invent anything, he did promote the personal computer into everyday house hold the most successfully out of everyone competing in the then-new computer industry, but I guess like every successful american, he was at the right place at the right time. He had access to a computer at high school at a time where computers are considered to be a luxury at a university. He was exposed to it a lot earlier then others at his time. He also had rich parents and met amazing friends at his high school. But still even if more people had that opportunity, I doubt that few would be as successful as him.

  365. ero / Jan 11 2013 11:03 am

    brelliants are inventors and beaches keep toaking abut z invent.

  366. Alessio Curuizia Jr. / Jan 9 2013 1:24 pm

    Most of the others could be debatable but Edison I agree with emphatically! I’m not going
    to list the reasons because they’ve already been listed.I will say His jealously/paranoia/
    inadequate feeling anger towards Tesla is quite well known.
    He would attempt to slander Tesla w/”sketchy” rationalizations, Flat out lies to the public
    about him on why Tesla coils can’t possibly work like his bulbs, Even lies to Tesla himself
    about collaborating together, Which Tesla wanted again, Just to tell him “Psych” at the
    end to get some sort of petty payback in Edison’s mind.
    From what I’ve studied Tesla always took the high road. The most despicable thing Edison
    ever did to discredit Tesla was have a public staging that involved electrocuting an ELEPHANT!
    w/ Tesla coils to show they didn’t work compared to his precious bulbs. Tesla 4ever.

  367. Anonymous / Jan 8 2013 11:48 pm

    I’ll tell you who is not a genius. This author.

    • Anonymous / Feb 10 2013 12:42 am

      Aye aye dumbest blog ive ever read should be deleted..

  368. Anonymous / Jan 8 2013 5:06 pm

    good article if anything entertaining
    I have a few comments
    1 Gates isnt a genius period. I am not sure why he is included. However imo he is most definitely overrated as his only known achievement is buy low sell high for personal gain. He didnt even amass his fortune from nothing as he comes from well off family. Ignorant people often add all kinds of non-existent feats to his biography.

    Einstein. He was an extremely smart fellow imo. His overrated comes from unhealthy fascination of him by media. I guess media just sticking to him as their science mascot or whatever. Other than that he deserves his fame. He did his job and contributed to knowledge pool.

    Leonardo Da Vinci – is most definitely the most overrated “genius”. He was a painter.His contribution was paintings. He did not invent tanks helicopters or calculators he drew some stuff that looked like that because he was a painter. Unless people think that whatever Picasso sketches in his private notebooks are inventions too . His fascination with human anatomy can be explained by being a painter. If he lived today and started cutting up dead corpses to paint better people would not call that genius …. i hope. He was a painter Mona Lisa is what he has done. the rest is pure fiction.

    • S W / Mar 5 2013 6:49 am

      Are you sure you know Leonardo da Vinci’s work? It seems you don’t.

  369. Thomas / Jan 3 2013 5:15 pm

    I honestly don’t think that you have any idea about how out of this world the idea einstein had was back then. He also isn’t famous for doing any math, maybe in your uneducated community. It is not very respectfull to put any of these physicians on the list. I honestly think that you’re one of all the other people that aren’t informed but think they are. You know, those kind of people that sit at the dinner table and complain about the problems of the world, but dont actually have any clue what they are talking about. I don’t really bother about your opinion or your list, i just have holidays and no clue what i should do now, so i felt like getting your jimmies all rustled when you read this. You can pretend to be so many things on the internet, and you choose to be a complete moron.

  370. Anonymous / Jan 2 2013 10:51 pm

    I’m not going to really comment right now on the various geniuses listed in this article, but I would like to clarify something. The ingredients of a genius are Intelligence and Contribution. It can be broken down like this:

    Intelligence + Contribution = Genius.

    A contribution without intelligence is mediocre at best, and intelligence without contribution is a wasted potential. Yes, some of these men were business savvy, worked with other geniuses, or drew from already established conventional knowledge, but what makes them great was their contribution to the human race in posterity. Da Vinci and Franklin were no doubt universal geniuses as they became profoundly versed in a wide range of fields. Their gifts to humanity span a wide range of fields and there is no doubt the world is a more evolved place because they existed. Their impact in so many ways is undeniable. And their IQs were well above 160.

    • Anonymous / Jan 24 2013 6:59 pm

      I must disagree. It is possible to be a brilliant genius without contributing anything to anyone. Intelligence is not restricted by contribution, and the definition of a genius is an extremely intelligent person. Having said that, the authors obsession with IQ tests is unfounded, as the ability to take a test well is not the measure of intelligence. Furthermore, anyone who does not recognise that the correct plural of the word ‘genius’ is in fact ‘genii’, and not ‘geniuses’, should not be allowed to post on this page.

      • Anonymous / Feb 10 2013 11:58 am

        Both are acceptable. Get over it.

  371. list of colleges in australia / Jan 2 2013 6:38 am

    Wow, awesome blog structure! How long have you ever been running a blog for?

    you make running a blog look easy. The entire look of your
    website is excellent, as well as the content material!

    • Anonymous / Jan 10 2013 3:53 pm

      You are kidding right?

      • Anonymous / Jan 12 2013 8:42 am

        It’s spam, don’t pee yourself

  372. Teddy Bear / Dec 30 2012 12:26 am

    Can’t waste too much time on on random websites nobody looks at … however …

    Simplistic ruminations and (so called) “debate and arguments” of a TOTAL narrow-minded, illogical, NOBODY, ignoramus. Priceless.

    The counter arguments are elementary. Example

    The idiot first sets up a straw man by postulating that the world thinks Bill Gates is a technical GENIUS. Then the idiot says this is silly. Why? Because Gates didn’t invent the freaking mouse or the computer, or the KEYBOARD! LMFAO!!! Sure. The inventors of the mouse and keyboard are pure geniuses right? Problem with this stupid argument is people don’t think Gates is a TECHNICAL genius. People think he is a BUSINESS genius because he was the one who brought PC’s to the WORLD, which is without a doubt true. The genius at XEROX and PARC? They were a think tank and that’s about it. There is genius in making the PC ubiquitous. The idiot also fails to mention Gate’s REAL contribution when you examine TECHNOLOGY — The Window OS — the most used OS on the planet. No, gates didn’t invent the freaking OS EITHER (!) LOL! But he sure did make a difference as to how it was promulgated. There’s more to genius than the genius behind the … keyboard.

    Multiply his straw man blunder ten times. And you have the big mess above. He pretty much commits the same blunder TEN times.

    • 4tesseract / Mar 20 2013 11:14 am

      You nailed it for me dude: pervasive argumentative fallacies.

  373. Anonymous / Dec 27 2012 8:22 pm

    The 2 and 3 are just wrong. Einstein made significant discoveries even though everyone else thought otherwise and Phythagoras ist not comparible to Gauß, because Phytagoras didn’t even know arabic numbers und mondern concepts of proof.

  374. Anonymous / Dec 27 2012 3:34 pm

    If everyone is soo stupid and overrated and none of these people have made real contributions in the world how about you make some yourself? You are in no position to degrade these people since you yourself are nothing but a hater who feels the need to criticize the most influential men in our society in order to make yourself feel better. If nothing requires ingenuity to be discovered why don´t YOU discover something??

  375. :D / Dec 27 2012 11:27 am

    lol steven weinberg who?

    the guy who made the standard model possible was Abdus Salam together with john clive ward

  376. Peter Atkinson / Dec 25 2012 8:03 am

    There are so many critical errors in this last i don’t know where to start. First of all some of these people aren’t necessarily geniuses but have made some of the most important discoveries of mankind. Leonardo Da Vinci was an intelligent desgner and inventor, but not a genius and i dont know anyone who refers to him that way, and you would be hard pressed to think of people who have made such a large impact in human existence. Putting albert Einstein in this list is a joke. Without his theory of relativity, how would modern physics be today? I agree with Bill Gates, but i hang out with people who know he didnt invent the computer, he just invented a very effective, user friendly OS. Michio Kaku is a genius, so is Stephen Hawkins. People generally dont know of other physicists. They have played a great role in bringing physics to a different crowd. I personally find Michio Kaku to be highky interesting and is extremely good at explaining physics laws in ways that is very entertaining and easy to understand.

  377. Anonymous / Dec 23 2012 2:36 pm

    I just wanna say you know nothing about physics. Your comment on Albert Einstein is completely arrogant.

  378. Anonymous / Dec 22 2012 4:00 pm

    If you don’t even have the intelligence to construct your argument in correct English, how can you, in all conscience, sit there and run down some of the greatest minds in history? You are an hypocrite, and you are not qualified to make such criticisms. Furthermore, you haven’t the wit to correctly interpret the title of your own article. It is, as you ought to be aware, entitled ‘The Top 10 Most Overrated “Geniuses”‘ (In fact the correct plural of ‘Genius’ is, in English, ‘Genii’), however, you reference William james Sidis, as being a genius, but not making any appreciable contributions. This does not, in fact, render him any less of a genius. It is not necessary to accomplish anything at all to be possessed of a brilliant mind, and you have clearly not considered this in your ill-considered attack on these people. If you must contradict yourself, try not to do it while insulting better men than you will ever know. In addition, you have failed to take into account the difference in resources available to these men. It is not possible to compare Pythagoras of Samos with, for example, Newton, as Pythagoras had none of the background information, or indeed the codification that was available centuries later. Pythagoras’ discoveries involved an entirely new mindset for his time, and so he is, in fact, brilliant. Furthermore, Pythagoras is known for many other achievements other than his work in mathematics, so your arguments are narrow-minded, and do not consider the full person. The phrase ‘for his/her time’ is one that perhaps might be considered, before you attempt to prove your ignorance by contrasting men with entirely different backgrounds against one another. If you must compile such a demeaning list, may I remind you that it is customary to research fully, to consult professional opinions, and not to rely on heresy and gossip when discussing some of the finest intellects in history as if they were lesser than yourself. I suggest that you either find out exactly what you are talking about, or stop talking immediately. There is much more that could be said, however at this point I will constrain myself to the comments above.

  379. Anonymous / Dec 20 2012 12:36 pm

    IQ of barely 100, talks about people with nearly twice that. Good job on that. Although i agree with stephen hawking, thomas edison and Michio Kaku. The rest are simply wrong.

    • Machiavelli / Dec 21 2012 5:29 am

      I think you are right about everyone, but Einstein, he had to be genius to understand that Faraday, Galileo and Newton were the ones to follow, did he not?

  380. Kev / Dec 14 2012 2:20 pm

    IMO This is simply a way to discredit some of mainstream-history’s greatest minds in order to ultimately feed the writter’s ego. I’m compelled to think the writter was a fail-student and an overall under achiever at life that presumes him or herself as a relatively intelligent person. Fortunately for the writter, he/she has found publishing articles on the Internet as an efficient way to relieve stress; despite the ridiculousness and faulty claims at times. To make matters worse, ‘genius’ is not even nessarly defined by Iq tests, which is the core of all the writter’s arguments.

  381. Patrick Bateman / Dec 9 2012 9:50 pm

    I presume this is for trolling or jokes… Because if its not you are quite possible one of the stupidest people on this planet.

  382. Abhijeet Vats / Dec 8 2012 7:52 am

    Obviously, you do not have the sense to read up on these people’s history because IQ does not mean you have to contribute something to the society and THEN people think you have a high IQ. Intelligence Quotient just means the amount of intelligence you have to figure out stuff which does not make sense without using mathematical proofs. Dumbass

  383. hifijohn / Dec 4 2012 9:36 pm

    I agree with columbus being overrated you cant discover a continent centuries before others have,edison was no genius he was very curious and a great tinkerer, for instance he liked DC not AC
    for household current not for logical or economical reasons he just wasnt smart enough to understand AC current!!

  384. Nikola / Dec 4 2012 6:10 pm

    Hahaha there is Edison and no sign of Nikola Tesla, again human stupidity is infinite.

  385. Jack / Dec 2 2012 6:45 pm

    Sorry just wanted to add something to what you said about Pythagoras. Your correct in your assertion that proving Pythagoras’ theorem is not that great a feat. I myself proved it when I was eighteen within 40 minutes of trying.

    • Anonymous / Dec 22 2012 4:03 pm

      You had mathematical background, and a well-known and universal codification system. The need for which Pythagoras was the first to recognise.

  386. Jack / Dec 2 2012 6:39 pm

    Totally agree with the list. Almost want to tear my hair out when I hear that Hawking is supposed to be a genius. The man is an ok physicist. But thats all. Many more physicists alive who are better than him. Never knew people thought that Michio kaku was regarded as a genius. He is just a good tv personality. Before I get to Einstein I want to comment on your reference to IQ points. Intelligence is not somenthing that can be measured like distance or weight. Psychologists who think they can put a score to intelligence show absolute naivety and downright ignorance. People who do well in IQ test are just good at IQ tests. To my knowledge the test has never predicted a great thinker or scientist and never will.
    Back to our friend Albert Einstein. You should have put the fact that he did NOT change our view of space and time. Lorentz did. Poincare published his work on relativity before Einstein. The space-time diagram is due to Minkowski. Some even say that Einstein should not be even included on the list of people who discovered special relativity. There is even doubt about who really came up with General relativity. As Enrico Fermi once said ” People like Einstein come once every 50 years but people like Newton come once every thousand years”. Yet the media will have us believe that good old Albert is probably the greatest physicits of all time. Oh the injustice.

  387. Aita / Nov 24 2012 9:23 am

    Gates isn’t a tech genius, he’s a business genius… he’s manipulative and sly and certainly knows how to make money by any means. That’s where his prowess lies. I found it interesting he’s included, since I’ve never heard anyone purport any of the things you’ve stated… he’s certainly part of the reason home computers took hold as they did, which could be argued, but not in a development sense. I’d replace him with Jobs, who also didn’t create much but popularized things that other people made, and he’s more revered as such…

  388. Jonpaul Flowers / Nov 23 2012 12:09 pm

    You know just enough physics that you feel as if you know a lot, but if you knew just a little more you’d realize how little you know. I agree with you about 7 out of 10. Hawking’s and Penrose’s main theory about gravitational singularities has neither been falsified or shown to make accurate predictions most of the time, so until his theory is tested. As a science popularizer he is very good being able to describe quantum mechanics to many more people than anyone previously had. I don’t believe there is a most important living physicist right now, and if there is Hawking most certainly isn’t it and neither is Witten or Weinberg. Witten is a brilliant mathematician. I’ve heard many stories about Penrose’s mathematical abilities being completely alien to everyone around him (including Hawking, who had been alone in his ability to formulate quantum mechanics mathematically in his head until he met Penrose), but as far as contributions to mathematical physics Witten out weighs them. Physicists seem to accept Hawking radiation, while it has still never been observed, because it should exist. M-Theory is not something that should exist. It’s not a derivation of what we know, but rather string theory is started by asking what can we figure out about the most basic level of reality. The parallels between Plato Descartes and String Theory are no coincidence. And while I have no doubt that String Theory will at least have certain principles that seem to loosely correlate with reality (as Descartes and Plato did), I highly doubt it is “true” (I hate this word when it comes to physics, but what I mean by it is that it will yield predictions that are more accurate than the theory before it). And I doubt it because every advance in physics has been made with reference to experimental results rather than just theorizing. If Alvin Weinberg were still alive (he died close to 10 years ago now) he would be the most important living physicist, but he isn’t and I can not think of one person that I am certain will be remembered to this day. Oddly, enough, right after writing that I can think of two experimental physicists who will be remembered, but not necessary for being great. Fleschmann and Pons are going to be remembered for being the two unluckiest guys in the history of science. Shouldn’t have called it Fusion.

    Now about Benjamin Franklin. Whether or not the key story is a myth, he showed that lightning was electrical in nature, and that it moved like a liquid. It’s not that he understood it. No one would until Maxwell and even Maxwell’s theory was falsified very shortly after his death by, guess who, Einstein. But had Benjamin Franklin never studied electricity he would still be one a genius. You can go through his inventions get rid of all them and he’d still be a genius. Sure he was a scientist. A great one, but he’s not in Faraday or Maxwell’s class a scientist. Faraday and Maxwell regularly get fourth and third respectively on almost every greatest physicist’s list. Einstein is only more famous because nuclear weapons scared everyone to death and you can trace them back to him. And it’s fairly incorrect because Fermi, Sakharov, Oppenheimer, Lisa Metier and Heisenberg are the main scientists responsible for nuclear weapons. Franklin, as far as being a scientist, was one of the few people who knew, understood and accepted the wave theory of light. The only other guy that I know of that understood the wave theory of light before Young’s experiment is another of the most underrated physicists of all time. Euler. Though, he may have been forgotten about as a physicist, he usually is regarded as the greatest mathematician of all time (that is alongside Gauss, Newton and Archimedes).

    Now for the big one. Einstein. It’s comical how little you know about his contributions to physics. Let’s just start at the beginning. He is without any shadow of any doubt the most important scientist of the 20th century. He sits at the very top echelon’s’ of science with Aristotle, Newton, Darwin and Maxwell. Sure I love Feynman, but Feynman’s greatest contribution is that he alone understood what Einstein said (and he did unify the weak and electromagnetic forces; I guess that goes on par with his description of quantum mechanics and General Relativity). Remember Einstein was the greatest physicist in the world before General Relativity. And e=mc2 might have changed the world in a significant way, but it’s a footnote in his biographies. He won the noble prize for quantum theory more specifically his explanation of the photoelectric effect, and you are forgetting that he became famous for Special relativity. In reality he should’ve won at least 4 noble prizes. In 1905 a post office clerk writes 4 papers that were all revolutionary. He starts with the photoelectric effect, thus ending Maxwell’s theory, and proposing energy quanta. His next paper on Brownian motion proves the existence of atoms. His third paper is Special Relativity, which is the most clear out of these what he should’ve won the noble prize for, but it wasn’t accepted by 1921 when he won it. His fourth paper is mass energy equivalence. These four papers alone put him above almost every other physicist, and yet none of them are his greatest contribution to science. You correctly point out that he used others work (as every scientist does), but what you don’t seem to know is that Pauli, Lorentz, Ponicare and Planck, while having correctly formulated the mathematics of Quantum Theory had no idea what it meant. Much of the math behind Special Relativity (though not all) was known to Lorentz about a year before 1905 (Einstein had called it the Lorentz Einstein theory), yet he had no idea what it meant. More specifically he didn’t realize that this showed current electromagnetic field theory was incorrect. It’s these sorts of explanations that led Planck to realize that what Einstein was saying was true.

    But it goes on. I said 4 noble prizes, so far I only see 2. Special Relativity and his explanation of the photoelectric effect. Einstein also went on to explain the motion of Bosons. This was the last of his most major contributions. I don’t know why you bring up Unified Field Theory. And why you meant Faraday. Faraday did even know that there were multiple forces in the sense that we do. The reason Einstein and others wanted a Unified field theory is because in the mathematical description of each force looks exactly the same. It makes you think that it’s not more than one thing at work here. I can give you Einstein’s failures. Black holes, Cosmological constant and Unified Field Theory. His theory predicted one, the other he made up and he searched for most of his life for the last but was unable to ever produce meaningful work associated with it. But everything up to here Pales in comparison with General Relativity. Not in technological application but rather understanding the world we live in. General Relativity has nothing to do with GPS. I hear this and am blown away at people’s failure’s to differentiate Special from General Relativity. Tests for General Relativity are few and far apart, but so far without one exception Newton’s theory of gravity is not nearly as accurate as General Relativity. There was a proposed test of GR with GPS, but with only Special Relativity you could easily correct the error caused by relativity in a GPS. GPS would get ahead about 45 microseconds a day, which would add up to quite a bit. I feel I should explain relativity, but I’ll just say go read wikipedia or a text book, because it would take too long. GR is Einstein’s theory of gravity. It is well-tested and virtually every physicist believes that it yields accurate predictions. Is it really what’s happening? Who knows, but it’s seeming mutual exclusiveness with Quantum Mechanics gave Einstein much duress as he is the founder of two incompatible branches of physics that both seem to be correct and continue to yield highly accurate predictions. Now this isn’t everything he did. This is probably half, but it’s the more important half to be sure. He had one of the most prolific and widespread intellects of anybody. Turning is the only other scientist who contributed to a similar number of vast array of fields. Yes Maxwell is almost as important as Einstein as a theoretical physicist and Faraday is one of the most important experimental physicists, but that doesn’t mean Einstein isn’t important.

  389. genious / Nov 22 2012 3:49 pm

    wel i wnt to say many things but i got my exams tmro. so what i say abt this list is a stupid posted it and other stupids are trying to change his view.his post canot change facts rit?the y the hel bother?may b ths is most over comented post(though it aint got milln coments or so).only a genious can list genious bt he wil nt do it b’coz he is nt that stupid to do it.

  390. bear / Nov 22 2012 3:25 pm

    ur view on genious ws completely wrong. a genious is not judged byhis iQ bt by the way he uses his minmum iq to do more works.may b the world around u gave u that idea.
    abt davincy,all his desines worked by modification thats true but davincy himself mentions in one of his writings that he had modified his desines as he dint wanted som idiot to use it just by building it(thts wisdom).he never tought that it would take 200 years 4 them to get discoverd and tested,the tim wen any person can do it.

    • Anonymous / Oct 8 2013 4:29 pm

      It helps to sound credible when making a point. Also, you probably should not criticize someone’s view of genius when you cannot even spell the word correctly. However, I will agree that this list is ridiculous.

  391. Anonymous / Nov 18 2012 10:10 pm

    You are an ignorant, religiously arrogant individual only held up by the hatred of others. I can’t help but notice that the primary reason your blog has views are due to hate mail, the ranks of which I lie among. In common internet terms, you are what we would define as an “internet troll.” You are either one of the most clueless individuals in the world, or one of the best trolls.

    • Anonymous / Jan 25 2013 6:30 pm

      Oh so very true

  392. Anonymous / Nov 18 2012 10:05 pm

    This has to be among the utmost conjecturally written blogs I have ever read. It is obvious from the start that you are a religious evangelist, simply through context. You have no place in the assessment of genius, because your type clearly lack it.

  393. andy (@emanresusydna) / Nov 17 2012 10:41 pm

    I enjoyed the article and appreciate been introduced to the like of Edward Witten. My opinion is that the article highlights the important point that the greatest minds do not get their rightful respect in history for their contributions; however for the example of Michio Kaku#8 vs Witten the reason people get overrated is that they are commonly known which gives them a celebratory status, sure Kaku is a tv personality.

    I think the reason behind this is that Kaku has great tv personality allowing him to describe science to the general public, doesn’t make him more of a genius than Witten but of course he will be commonly believed to be as he is better known. Now no disrepect to Witten as I have looked up his contributions to science but on the screen he is less energetic than Kaku and would not appeal to the wider audience, and not everyone picks up a book these day, least not on theoretical physics unless your studying for it.

    In essence I’m trying to say that I agree that the top 10 people here are likely overrated by most people, but only because it suited the general audience. If your saying scientists and engineers overrate these people then perhaps it’s because they haven’t looked hard enough into each persons contributions and went with the general opinion.

    I’d appreciate some thoughts on this and some honest debate because it’s an interesting topic.

  394. nlm / Nov 14 2012 8:09 pm

    Dammit How can people like you even be allowed to write shit like this? Einstein not a genius!? PYTHAGORAS!? WAIT DA VINCI!??? You are an underrated idiot I would say and can give you as many arguments as there are words on this article to prove so. Shame on you, I’m just glad that you didn’t say Newton was the most overrated genius, but I’m pretty sure you forgot about him. What are your contributions to science?…. none? Well that’s surprising isn’t it? GO STUDY!

  395. damn / Nov 14 2012 9:51 am

    Wow, this idiocy really rustled my jimmies

  396. beardrage / Nov 11 2012 7:31 am

    I’m sorry, but bagging on Pythagoras for the fact that his 3000 year old theorem isn’t as complex as modern mathematics is just plain dumb. Nothing is ever accomplished in math or science unless it builds of what already exists, and somebody has to start the ball rolling, so considering the time when he worked it’s hard to overstate the impact of his mathematical work.

    As for the Einstein vs Farraday thing, you might as well have just said “the only difference between the two was that Einstein’s theory actually worked.” You seem to think that just because it had occured to somebody else to do something, the person who finally succeeds doesn’t deserve any credit for it. So if somebody manages to invent a time machine, will you claim they really weren’t all that smart because sci-fi had already thought of time machines?

    • itsnobody / May 17 2013 12:32 am

      I’m sorry, but bagging on Pythagoras for the fact that his 3000 year old theorem isn’t as complex as modern mathematics is just plain dumb. Nothing is ever accomplished in math or science unless it builds of what already exists, and somebody has to start the ball rolling, so considering the time when he worked it’s hard to overstate the impact of his mathematical work.

      There’s no historical evidence that Pythagoras came up with a proof of the Pythagorean theorem, so even during his time period what he did wasn’t much. Pythagoras matches the definition of overrated. The works of Euclid and Archimedes (which came only a few hundred years after Pythagoras) are far superior to anything that Pythagoras ever did.

      As for the Einstein vs Farraday thing, you might as well have just said “the only difference between the two was that Einstein’s theory actually worked.” You seem to think that just because it had occured to somebody else to do something, the person who finally succeeds doesn’t deserve any credit for it. So if somebody manages to invent a time machine, will you claim they really weren’t all that smart because sci-fi had already thought of time machines?

      No you got it all wrong. I mentioned Faraday ideas to note that Einstein’s alleged originality wasn’t really that original, meaning Einstein’s originality was exaggerated.

      If someone invents a time machine and claims that the idea to invent a time machine was a sign of originality then I would say that their originality was indeed exaggerated.

      The main reasons that I claimed that Einstein was overrated:
      - Mathematics not from Einstein, but Riemann
      - Ideas not as original as portrayed
      - Other physicists who made arguably more significant contributions (like Newton and Maxwell) ignored
      - Contributions exaggerated
      - Being portrayed as the smartest person ever

      Just compare the historical significance of Maxwell’s contributions vs. Einstein’s contributions and it’s no comparison, Maxwell wins by a big margin.

  397. john doe / Nov 9 2012 4:37 pm

    a) the reason Archimedes isn’t ‘recognised’ as you say, is because of how many myths or exaggerated tales are told of him, and how to separate them from facts about him.
    b) have to agree about what you said about einstein and pythagoras.
    c)on the topic of Leonardo da Vinci: a large part of his sketches weren’t ever really taken seriously, even by himself. virtually none of his designs were tested until this century. Some of the few that have been recently constructed and tested did work, and incredibly well at that.
    d) about what you said about estimated IQ: if you were to memorize answers to the questions, you would have a good score, right? but, then you are using your memory, not your mind.

  398. hbu / Nov 6 2012 1:40 am

    I never comment on any websites but i couldnt resist after reading this. You have no proof to your claims so how is anyone supposed to view your arguments as valid? Plus youre a dirty hippie burgler who steals baked goods out of jewish peoples hair. I rest my case.

  399. alex.. / Nov 2 2012 2:59 pm

    , you have underrated Eisenstein Hawkins, you have overrated Edison and William James Siddis

    mentioning Watson and crick is like mentioning Fleming, anyone whom knows them knows their accomplishment enough to say its not really genius..

    you have overrated newton etc, theoretically the official stats for iq show 130 is genius 150 super genius, officially, though why put emphasis on the iq? the largest iq in Britain was for a bouncer, and interviews with this man show him to be retarded, even the mp john hemming whom put man u player ryan giggs in the shitter has an iq 182.. higher than Einstein’s 165 it doesn’t mean anything..

    this is a horrible encouragement for the idea of inherent genius without effort.. and arrogant irrational hatred for the communities concept of genius.

  400. Jared / Oct 28 2012 6:21 pm

    This is perhaps the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. I don’t think any of your “arguments” actually made logical sense.

  401. Ohreally00 / Oct 27 2012 12:20 am

    Ok if theyre overrated then get every contribution they have made that are in your daily life and take them out

    • Anonymous / Dec 22 2012 4:14 pm

      You forget every technology that is BASED ON or DEVELOPED DUE TO the contributions of these ‘overrated’ men. Get rid of those too, and see how your live is.

  402. treeky / Oct 25 2012 11:00 am

    Why Nicola Tesla not in the list?He discover and invent things like saucer, control of natural disaster, laser beam, wireless electricity, AC now what we use, anti gravity, free energy and more. The only problem his enemy is JP morgan. That morgan has a power of telling other sponsors that not to fund tesla. So after that tesla was live alone in the hotel of new york until he died and the only genius that been abandoned and never get rich. Make a research about him his an interesting man to know and there is more something about tesla that the government don’t want you to know.

  403. prince mbamara / Oct 18 2012 11:00 am

    besides your article breaks from the norms and norm breakin g was popularised that but you probably didnt know cos you learnt it from someone who learnt from someone who learnt from………………………………………………………da vinci

  404. prince mbamara / Oct 18 2012 10:50 am

    you obviously know nothing about da vinci and einstein and let me ask you what have you contributed to yourself or your state or your country talkmore of the world.rewrite this article when you have more knowledge about these men and have done something noteworthy.

  405. Gooran / Oct 13 2012 5:37 pm

    When someone touch dogma…. many will jump to defend. This moment is the sign that we soon are going to overcome dogma and jump to next level. Thats why i admire to author and no wander he make such a stir. New level requre energy!

    Future generation may look at the broader picture before become someone fan.

    I read all comments and all are more less the same, there is not new thoughts here just the same old school from popular opinion and fan reactions.

    Why last drop in glass all ready full of water is counted big as glass of water? Last drop s only being there in right moment and right place. Last drop can be smaller then any one befere…but in the eyes of ordinary peoples looks as big as glass it self.

  406. Gooran / Oct 13 2012 4:52 pm

    Not many people having courage to tell their own thoughts. Usually they just pass thoughts others and in the process mass opinions are formed. That opionin become truth as “everyone say so!”
    Well done to author as he express his opinion and his courage to think using his own head not just to pass thoughts others.
    Main power to overating geniuses is media and army of peoples who passing other peples thoughts can be traced back from media source. That army makes thinks possible for legend to live. Wrong legends…but right legend from media point of view.

  407. MrBundren / Oct 9 2012 6:32 pm

    this is banality at its finest

  408. Alex / Oct 8 2012 7:14 pm

    What an ignorant, ill-informed, and ridiculously wanton polemic. You employ cheap rhetoric and disguise your arguments in supposed “logical fallacies” to add an intellectual veneer to the post, when really it’s just your personal bigotry coming out in many cases. Your views are unfortunately particularly unqualified and jejune when it comes to Da Vinci and Einstein, both whom are universally revered in their own rights among scientists, engineers, artists, and others.

    In the end, I’m afraid to say you come off overwhelmingly as a callow pseudo-academic; someone utterly unscholarly in practice and in theory; an adolescent in mind (if not body) with all the associated vanity. One could label you as a mere sophist, but even that would be missing the mark alas.

    The harsh truths aside, I write this reproval as someone who has known the lure of intellectual conceit and would hope he understands the full level of his general ignorance. This post and a brief scan of your ‘About’ page reveals little except that you seem to be stuck at the first of the famed four stages of competence. Please open your eyes to reality, or seek help in doing so. Observe the number of detractors this simple post has garnered and the severity. Learn from it and grow, we may hope.

    • Anonymous / Oct 26 2012 8:02 pm

      Did you try to include ridiculously obscure words to sound smart?

    • Anonymous / Nov 1 2012 12:48 am

      Heres basically what you did with your essay. You insulted him for three paragraphs except for this one line, “Your views are unfortunately particularly unqualified and jejune when it comes to Da Vinci and Einstein, both whom are universally revered in their own rights among scientists, engineers, artists, and others.” Instead of giving him a real reason why his viewpoints are wrong, you tell him that 2 of the 10 men are great (implied from your sentence) because others regard them as great. I hope they taught you more than how to type “fancy” wherever you were educated.

      • Anonymous / Dec 22 2012 4:18 pm

        Just because you yourself haven’t the basic education to understand the complex ideas and vocabulary in this comment, you insult it’s author. Just like the writer of the post insults the great men of history because he cannot understand their ideas.

  409. Labe / Oct 6 2012 7:59 pm

    And who are you, and most importantly what is your contribution to science, general knowledge, arts, or any other field?

  410. Theina / Sep 30 2012 10:34 pm

    Agree with this list except for Da Vinci. There is no one,not Gothe,not Newton,not Avicenna,not Tesla who surpasses him in terms of overall genius.Sure certain contributions in their field are more impacting than what Da Vinci offered.But what turns out to be useful to future generations is not related to genius but is simply a matter of serendipity.

    I might add that the most overrated spot goes to Noam Chomsky,whose contributions to linguistics is not even in the realm of science.Additionally ,one might add Richard Dawkins to this list,who is not much of a practicing scientist but is a rather talented writer…as far as evolution is concerned.

    Let’s not forget Steve Jobs too,who is more similar to Edison.That is,he is not much of an inventor but very good at acquiring talented workers,and great at marketing and self promotion.

    • North Wing / Sep 30 2012 10:42 pm

      There is one person who dwarfs even Da Vinci.

      And that is none other than Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.

      The inventor of the Internet,Global Warming,Man-Bear-Pig,Super Cereal.The only man to make Homeopathy work;to generate energy via cold fusion;who corrected and provided conclusive evidence for M theory because of his ability to traverse all 11 dimensions.It is was he who made a time travelling machine and impregnated the Virgin Mary with his stunningly handsome face alone;he taught Gautama the meaning of Nirvana via PowerPoint presentations;he wrote the Koran before writing was invented ,which he invented later on;he taught Pythagoras his theorem via text messaging and emoticons,both of which he invented on a Blackberry (which he did not invent,but he was consulted about it).

  411. Irritated / Sep 30 2012 7:24 pm

    I find it rather hard to make a comment on this article as most of what the author and the commenters mention is a bunch of emotional crap without any real truthful assertions or facts. My POV is that the author has some random opinion on intelligence which s/he expresses and a bunch of butthurt people are angrily commenting about how stupid s/he is.

    I agree that with the author that although these people are far above average, they are indeed overrated in the media.

  412. J Marinelli / Sep 30 2012 5:26 pm

    Sir, You are dilusional, illinformed, and sadly uneducated.

    • Hello / Sep 30 2012 7:09 pm

      A rather unsupported claim, don’t you think?

  413. Jerry Di Caprio / Sep 29 2012 1:11 am

    Leonardo Da Vinci may not be the greatest genius of all time, and it is probably impossible to absolutely know who is. There is one thing that I do know for sure, and that is whoever the delusional buffoon is who dares to suggest that Da Vinci could possibly be overrated must have failed kindergarten. If we list Da vinci’s accomplishments on one side, and the author’s accomplishments on the other side of a list, we would be looking at Mount Everest compared to “it came From Beneath the Sea”. This dog should elope with Michael Vick and have a wonderful honeymoon

  414. Anonymous / Sep 26 2012 1:07 am

    I completely agree about Edison. Franklin was a pretty smart guy but I have trouble forgiving him for his legacy of electrical current flowing from positive to negative.

    • Anonymous / Sep 26 2012 1:23 am

      I feel your pain on the direction issue, but funny you should mention Edison because it was his inadvertant discovery that first demonstrated current as electron flow. As far as I know, Edison’s
      only contribution to science.

  415. Sean / Sep 26 2012 12:15 am

    To quote Billy madison (which i’m sure is too high brow for you to understand) – “what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul”.

  416. Anonymous / Sep 24 2012 10:57 am

    This article is a fabricated lie.

  417. SomeRandomeBoredDed / Sep 23 2012 5:08 pm

    Goethe and Shakespeare I would put on the list

    Real good choice on Sidis. There is SO much disinformation about his actual abilities
    in particular about his supposed 250-300 IQ

    Gates is very smart but I would agree that is still overrated

    • Fabio / Sep 25 2012 1:51 pm

      why only cuz they were poets instead phycisists or mathematicians?

      • BoredOutOf MyMind / Oct 4 2012 8:14 pm

        Sidis was considered a Mathematician but yet Sidis is listed.

  418. OBSERVER / Sep 22 2012 2:55 am

    Ever heard of R.N Tagore-one of the greatest polymath of all time and the only person in the world to compose 3 national anthem of India,Bangladesh and Srilanka,also the first non European Nobel laureate excluding peace…He is overrated in his native Bengal but relatively unknown to outside world after his death.

  419. Anonymous / Sep 20 2012 1:51 pm

    This is the most inaccurate ranking I have ever seen. The author of this website is completely oblivious to everything that has happened in the scientific community in the last few centuries.

  420. kevin / Sep 14 2012 8:16 am

    hello first i would like to say sorry for my pour english i am not from any english talking country.
    i agree with this statement u did like for bill gates is not an genius and i agree with it 100% he is an smart person yes but not an genius. he is an person who knew how to get money and did it in the right time.i taught Hawking was an genius until i figured out an genius does the work and an smart person perfects it.and i agree that physics does not make an man an genius i am only 13 (lately got) and know a lot about physics (i mean the same stuff like Einstein and Hawking did).i know the big bang theory and it was not an expolsion it was an very long process and know how to do the time travel (move with speed of light over the planet u wont age but others will) i also know stuff like light is not the fastest in the universe and 4th demension and i could explain it to u if u would ask me :) no im not an genius no im not smart im an person who does not waste his life on playing cool,fighting with other unknown persons in the internet. in my life (just me) i want to study about the universe and not hate on other persons of course i will never find out anything much and die like an fool and maybe not live over 50 years,i should be happy i am here on this planet as an human at the year 2012 and i have not known my father and i have not lived an happy life (like most of the children) but that made me who i am today not an selfish person and my biggest coal in life is help others and if i cant help them i wont hurt them at least . and please don,t say that i am too young to be here ); -kevin 13

  421. Bob / Sep 13 2012 5:16 pm

    you wanna know what a smart man said “Don’t ever argue with an idiot …They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”- Mark Twain
    this is meant for the author

  422. Bob / Sep 13 2012 5:08 pm

    This guy is a complete imbosol. IQ doesn’t justify the term of creative genius. I understand some of the picks, but seriously da Vinci, einstein man you must be out of your mind you biast fool. Prob got payed to do this. Are you a physicist? you are contradicting nevertheless and ignorant

  423. Anonymous / Sep 13 2012 3:16 am

    The guy that made this was just looking for attention clearly. The sad part is he could be using his time to do something productive.

  424. Anonymous / Sep 10 2012 8:52 pm

    Correct of a fair few – but anyone who thinks Einstein is overrated doesnt know what they’re talking about. no one man could have created reimannian geometry and the theory of general relativity.

    • Fabio / Sep 11 2012 4:00 pm

      isaac newton = integral calculus , diferencial calculus and theory of gravity

      einstein cannot be compared with newton

      • Anonymous / Sep 19 2012 10:55 am

        He didnt compare them jackass. And why are people so caught up comaring everything nowadays? This isn’t sports, these people all made contrinutions and should be appreciated for them.

        Except Edison, he’s a fraud.

    • Gooran / Oct 13 2012 5:03 pm

      Did you ever heard for Milena Dravic?

  425. george / Sep 9 2012 2:39 pm

    Pythagoras was genious because he found the theorem at 500B.C not 1500A.D like others.

  426. Angus macleod / Sep 6 2012 7:20 am

    I think this article is completely biased. You over rate the known accomplished physicists AMD mathematicians but then refer to people who arr unheard of in mainstream media. I hav no doubt these people are incredibly smart and have made massive contributions, but these people you have listed helped to revolutionize the fields they work in. They are in no way over rated or under accomplished.

    • Gooran / Oct 13 2012 5:11 pm

      Last dop in the glass full of water not makes glass to be full. Last drop in glass full of water only makes water to overspell… and then we admire and celebrate only to that last drop of water overating contribution making from one small drop big as glass of water.

      • Anonymous / Dec 22 2012 4:25 pm

        Gooran, stop saying the same thing. We all heard you the first time. Shut up and learn english.

      • Anonymous / Jan 25 2013 10:37 pm

        Hear hear! We don’t need your religious philosophy Gooran. Certainly not twice. Go back to school and learn Engrish.

  427. Anonymous / Sep 5 2012 2:08 pm

    Most -experts in whatever field- would not even consider -insert genius’ name here- to be within the top -insert number- -experts in whatever field- of all time. How many times did you say this? Then you quote Da Vinci saying “Da Vinci himself said “Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory”.” why should this list be trusted if intelligence is not demonstrated in compilation?

    • Anonymous / Jan 25 2013 10:39 pm

      *constructs an argument against appealing to authority by appealing to the authority of Da Vinci*

  428. Anonymous / Sep 5 2012 2:12 am

    This list is complete rubbish. Leonardo da Vinci as the most overrated genius of all time? hahaha this is the most retarded list ever. IQ Doesn’t determine if you are a genius or not… What a dumb list

  429. matt / Sep 2 2012 12:23 pm

    fuck this guy and his bullshit. michio kaku made a atom smasher when he was in high school and had tenure at princeton by the time he was 25. Da vinci made plans for a helicopter before their was gas to power such a thing. your just a hater that wants to hate on people because you can. you dont know stephen hawking, you havent studied einsteins works. if you had then you wouldnt be hating so hard. these are smart guys and if anything theyre underrated. in a culture where rappers and football players get all of the recognition, you should at least not try to undermine the guys that have actually contributed to the bettering of the world

    • Fabio / Sep 5 2012 10:33 pm

      anyone can made a atom smasher, just having a manual to do so

      kaku is a retard , i saw him in a video saying that higgs boson and field are overrated hahahah

      i bet this discovery will prove string theory is wrong and he’s keep saying higgs boson is “predicted by string theory”

      BS!

  430. Anonymous / Aug 31 2012 2:04 pm

    Some geniuses were not exploited and they r in…AFRICA

  431. suckit / Aug 31 2012 6:48 am

    What the fuck is this “re-discoverd” shit? So I suppose that the inventor of the wheel was a fuck off because somebody would OBVIOSLY have figured it out eventually after the fact…. and somebodies IQ has nothing to do with their creativity, Moron. I have an average IQ of 146 and hardly as much creativity as found in any one of these “frauds”… I am NOT a “polymath” or a “genius” by any means. It’s a good thing any of them existed when they did and you weren’t the next “genius” in line because we would have been that many generations dumber… Maybe a little more so. ;)

    • suckit / Aug 31 2012 7:01 am

      …and everybody on here can stop using the fucking thesaurus more than the keyboard now… you sound like a bunch of 18 year olds fighting on behalf of their own intellect. News flash: If you already suck, guess what?! YOU STILL SUCK! You sound so fucking desparate when you scout out the most unused 18th century words to attempt to sophisticate your bullshit.

      • Anonymous / Dec 16 2012 9:25 pm

        Seriously don’t get which words you’re referring to. He spoke straight from his heart, I’d say, considering his election to use terms ‘fuck off’ and ‘moron.’ Also can tell he/she was passionate in arguing their point because of the comment’s periodical grammatical and spelling errors.

      • Anonymous / Dec 22 2012 4:28 pm

        Unfortunately for you, some people have a vocabulary. If you don’t understand it, perhaps you should get a dictionary yourself. Or go away and learn English.

    • Anonymous / Sep 25 2012 11:36 pm

      You really are ignorant. I haven’t seen any words here that any half-way intelligent person woluldn’t know and use. If you think a thesaurus would be required then you are a mental midget.

      • Anonymous / Jan 25 2013 10:42 pm

        Unfortunately, the criterion “halfway intelligent” is not met by Mr Suckit or his colleagues.

  432. John / Aug 29 2012 5:10 pm

    Non-geniuses may find this controversial. People who are generally intelligent may snigger a little. And geniuses? For all I know, they might wholeheartedly agree…

    Oh and a word to the wise… You might consider developing a better understanding of what it means to be a genius… Just saying.

  433. Davo / Aug 29 2012 1:24 pm

    wow what a nasty debate here going on – ad hominem after ad hominem, really it is kind of a chain: if the one starts, the fingers go pointing from one side to the other and the debate on the actual subject matter is gone. So here it ends hopefully ?!

    Only thing I want to say is that he makes some good points: Von Neumann is never talked about. Sidis has achieved very little – gets his fame for reading fast, and remembering much – not for his contributions. Ed Witten indeed > Hawking. Also agree that Heron, Archimedes, Gauss etc, do not get enough attention in comparison to Da Vinci. Perhaps this is due to the fact that Da Vinci was a painter and hence gained popularity.

    • Bolacha / Aug 31 2012 6:39 pm

      ed witten added one dimension and get all the hype for the all theory, also changed the name string theory to m – theory?

      no wonder he’s a jew wanting all the credit for his own.

    • Anonymous / Dec 22 2012 4:31 pm

      I really must point out that genius is not, has never been, and never will be, constrained by contribution. Get a dictionary and look up the word. You will find that it refers to mental capacity, not to inventions, discoveries or other irrelevancies. Goodbye.

  434. online surveys / Aug 28 2012 2:51 pm

    You realize therefore significantly on the subject of this matter, made me in my view consider it from numerous varied angles. Its like women and men aren’t fascinated until it is something to accomplish with Woman gaga! Your individual stuffs excellent. At all times deal with it up!

  435. Fabio / Aug 27 2012 8:28 am

    the author cited steven weinberg its funny because he and his colleagues based their work in another one the v – a theory made by an indian

    richard feymaan could perfectly be in the list

  436. fuck / Aug 25 2012 6:16 pm

    Please make another list called “the top 1 most overrated genius-rater of all time.” I wonder how many brilliant arguments a genius like you can come up for insulting itsnobody. Especially since there are too many retardations of itsnobody, surely if you can insult einsteins intelligence you can insult itsnobody even more, can’t you nobody in life?

  437. Anonymous / Aug 20 2012 9:35 pm

    the guys above were/are awesome
    all i see is the author having a cry because he didnt get to the cake first
    everything can be said to be an ‘easy discovery’ after the fact
    the author is an idiot

  438. p=np / Aug 18 2012 6:55 pm

    Haha.

    This tripe is only meant to get a rise out of us. I mean how can you take seriously someone who dismisses James watson as ‘only having an iq of 124′? He received his PhD at 22!

    Plus, Richard Feynman’s iq was 126 and he made important contributions to quantum mechanics and was awarded a Nobel. So, obviously, you can make groundbreaking contributions to science with an iq in the 120s.

    The tripe-spewing oxygen thief who wrote this has managed to attract traffic to his site, which is all he wanted. It’s really annoying that knowlege vacuums are free to air their half-digested musings. Hopefully, he’ll be deceased soon and be gone from our midst.

    Biatch!

    • Guilherme Diniz / Aug 20 2012 9:50 am

      he didnt made “his” contribuitions by himself he shared the award with Julian Schwinger and a japanese Sin-Itiro Tomonaga

      • Anonymous / Aug 30 2012 10:00 am

        That is absolutely incorrect. Feynmann’s formulation of quantum electro dynamics is completely independent of those of Schwinger and Tomonaga. Read more about the path integral formulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation

      • Fabio / Sep 1 2012 8:04 pm

        oh dear then why he shared the prize?

        using jewikipedia as a source? pff

    • Guilherme Diniz / Aug 20 2012 9:51 am

      and most probably nowadays with higgs boson discovery the feyman diagrams are incorrect.

      • Anonymous / Aug 30 2012 10:03 am

        That is again completely incorrect. Higgs discovery, if anything, shows that the Standard Model is a fully self consistent picture. And SM being a quantum field theory, Feymann diagrams are still completely compatible and are actually consistently used by particle physicists all the time. Feel free to browse through any recent particle physics papers. Or simply read wikipedia.

      • Fabio / Sep 1 2012 8:10 pm

        feyman diagrams were based on heisenberg’s uncertaity principle

        attention at 4:39 minute of the video

        the scientist says clearly that this discovery violates heisenberg’s formula all equations before it are automatically worng

        higgs discovery will improve quantum mechanics for sure

      • Fabio / Sep 1 2012 8:35 pm

        sorry i forgot to put the link

  439. Guilherme Diniz / Aug 17 2012 3:11 pm

    Max Planck’s quantum theory was made by him and only him , he’s the starter and didnt ge’t ideas from others to formulate it , unlike einstein’s relativity which began with works in physics by maxwell later poicare and olinto de pretto and in math by riemann.

    well its obvious that max planck with werner heisenberg are the greatest physicists ever

  440. davenielsen78@hotmail.com / Aug 15 2012 10:55 am

    I agree that some of the names on this list are overrated (like Michio Kaku and especially Stephen Hawking, whom many people think is the equal of men like Newton and Einstein) but your assessment of Einstein’s abilities and contributions is grossly inaccurate and almost superhumanly ignorant. Firstly, an idea expressed in a science fiction work doesn’t give it priority. Second, Faraday believing something doesn’t give him priority since he wasn’t able to prove those beliefs. Einstein proved his ideas, showing mathematically why they were true. Einstein wasn’t a mathematician. He made no important contributions to mathematics but I doubt anyone, including Einstein, would ever say so and I can’t remember anyone, even on that evil invention TV, suggesting that. He did have a very high ability in math, though, and did his own calculations. It’s a myth that Einstein didn’t get good grades in school and didn’t have much actual mathematical ability. I don’t believe that those overlooked physicists are in fact overlooked by the media. Many people have heard of Weinberg, and the people who haven’t probably don’t know Michio Kaku either. They know Hawking, who as I said I agree is overrated. His schtick is better than anyone else’s – the pure brain trapped in a crippled body. What able-bodied person can compete with that? I also agree with you about Leonardo, whose inventions were mostly crap (his plans for a machine gun anyone could have come up with – a bunch of single shot muskets joined together, fired by a single trigger but needing to be reloaded separately; a cannon loaded with grapeshot is much more effective), although I don’t know that you can discount his artistic achievements. He probably was a genius, just not a scientific one.

  441. Anonymous / Aug 13 2012 11:26 am

    I don’t know how is it that you can drawn such incredibly offensive and subjective judgments and subsequently pass them as conclusive descriptions of these men.

    Do mention something which indicates the slightest appreciation and understanding that you have for the great scientific insights and novel ideas that the overrated icons in your list have come up with.

    Good luck, pal. I won’t be seeing you anywhere and anytime soon, and I’m really glad about that.

  442. itsnobody / Aug 13 2012 5:36 am

    The author of this blog is really an idiot. How can you say that Albert Einstein Is overrated. He is the greatest scientist ever born.

    • Guilherme Diniz / Aug 17 2012 3:07 pm

      i think you are talking about newton or planck

      einstein general relativity with him or not was to be discovered soon enough by poincaré
      :D

      • Anonymous / Dec 22 2012 4:38 pm

        Most scientific discoveries are discovered twice on average. That by no means makes them less brilliant or useful, it just demonstrates my earlier point that certain time periods facilitate certain insights due to the climate of reason, and to recent publications.

    • Davo / Sep 11 2012 8:39 am

      doesn’t the fact that you rate einstein as the ‘greatest scientist ever born’ make you think that it is more likely that he is overrated than that he is underrated? :p

  443. Anonymous / Aug 13 2012 2:43 am

    So, conversely, who do you think are the top 10 geniuses of all time?

    • James / Aug 13 2012 2:51 am

      Don’t encourage him.

  444. Anonymous / Aug 11 2012 3:19 pm

    OMG -the most retarded list in all of mankind

  445. James / Aug 11 2012 2:52 am

    This list is analogous to a high school basketball player who makes a list of “most ever rated athletes”. How would an athlete respond when they blow the author clear out of the water? I would hope by laughing.

    By the way, an iq of 160 is about the highest possible iq we can reliably test and is held by less than 0.005% of the population. If da Vinci held that iq, His intelligence is surely above your arrogant ridicule and is worthy of respect and admiration.

    Note: just because you disagree with how the media portrays geniuses doesn’t mean you should be a dick to the geniuses themselves

  446. Anonymous / Aug 7 2012 6:24 pm

    Got annoyed with the words “ignored in the media”, and the redundancy of the author’s points.

  447. Sandro / Aug 7 2012 11:55 am

    Cannot agree about Einstein and Leonardo but sure the others I can accept. Einstein was surely not starting all over he used the knowledge that there is that´s how science works, and with it he revolutionized the whole idea of science. Leonardo is the multiking and lot of his works are still useful he made so much work so I guess he simply did´t take the time to finish them. He was known to leave works half done and beside there were no patent at that time so he had to make them harder to steal.

    • Sandro / Aug 7 2012 11:58 am

      PS havent read much about Pythagoras of Samos, William James Sidis and James D. Watson
      Pythagoras is surely a genius.

      • Anonymous / Aug 13 2012 11:30 am

        I disagree with the list nearly completely, but I will have to correct you for that. It is not known if Pythagoras himself discovered the theorems which bear his name; there is a possibility that the ideas discovered by the disciples of the Pythagorean cult were retroactively attributed to him.

        Source: A Brief Shape of inner Space.

    • davenielsen78@hotmail.com / Aug 15 2012 10:58 am

      Although I don’t agree with the way he expressed the opinion, Leonardo is overrated as a scientist and inventor. He was without doubt an artistic genius but made no contributions to science and his inventions are kind of crap.

      • Morticus / Sep 1 2012 5:54 am

        Not sure I’d call the ball bearing crap. Nor the hang glider. The pivot bridge? Hmmm. I think many fail to consider the phrase “in his time”, because surely, in his time da Vinci was beyond genius status.

        As far as the author, the repeated “this person is over rated because his contemporaries were not in the media” just doesn’t make sense. And as far as relying on other’s works, as Newton about that.

      • Anonymous / Dec 22 2012 4:41 pm

        Why is it assumed that one must make a scientific contribution to be a genius? There are many breeds of genius, and it cannot be assumed that all genii are interested in science.

  448. Anonymous / Aug 6 2012 6:18 pm

    author is stupid or jealous to geniuses

  449. Anonymous / Aug 6 2012 6:13 pm

    i have never seen a biggest shit than this blog

  450. - / Jul 29 2012 5:07 am

    and well said chris

  451. - / Jul 29 2012 5:01 am

    wow! How have u contibuted to the science comunity?

  452. Chris / Jul 26 2012 11:04 pm

    The author of this article is nothing more than a jealous, pseudo-intellectual child. To even think that he/she/it can talk about some of the greatest minds in human history is ridiculous. ‘itsnobody’, I think you’ll be a little more qualified to talk about anything intelligent once you begin to do anything useful with your life. Sitting here throwing childish insults around at people YOU WISH you could be won’t get you jack shit. You’re just a disillusioned religious nut-job that likes to flaunt his non-existent intelligence by using terms like “ad-hominem”. I love the fact that you’re always conveniently “short on time” when someone destroys your elementary school level logic.

    P.S. “My Ad-Hominem is too much for any of you Ad-hominems to ad-hominem correctly.”

    • davenielsen78@hotmail.com / Aug 15 2012 11:06 am

      His apparent dislike of TV by itself makes me think pseudo intellectual. He pretends to hate it, and probably to like things like chess and Classical music, because they’re associated with intelligence when in fact even geniuses like many stupid things.

    • Anonymous / Dec 22 2012 4:43 pm

      I entirely agree. Bravo.

  453. guilherme / Jul 25 2012 4:30 pm

    “itsnobody” lets presume that you’ll still remaining in this status

  454. shane / Jul 17 2012 11:17 am

    first of all what is that thing u have invented…stop comparing urself to aristotle and plato or for gods sake Ramnujan…….what is ur practical contribution apart from self aggrandizement……….u r not even a chomsky…..second agreed the japenese physicist with all his diagrams will be called vinci in the yr 3200…although less talented….(supposing mankind is obliterated tommorow)……einstein is not the greatest…….newton,gauss and U are…he was but amongst the top percentile….U r INVISIBLE……probably ur frustrated comments prove that we all have that thing called idiot box at home that stops us from being geniuses or atleast polymaths….like U…..gates and edison r businessmen..period…….steve jobs and Tesla were far far better respectively….hawking shud be sent to the nearest blackhole to prove his theories as most of that is unverifiable….franklin was a man of letters thats it……u wont dare call napoleon hill a genius or shakeaspere an earth shattering psychologist far ahead of his time for his thoughtful writing…..probably to end this search for the reply mozart gave a 10 year old when he was asked how to become like him.

    • Hello / Jul 28 2012 2:40 am

      Was English not your first language?

  455. machlnegunkelly / Jul 17 2012 7:42 am

    the author of this article is clearly a narcissist! At least he got his attention, that should satisfy him for a while, until its time to renew his medication ss. Only a fool would think Einstein and S. Hawking are overrated.. pathetic!

    • Anonymous / Jul 20 2012 2:47 pm

      Investiga sobre hawking,y comparaló con las decenas de genios que no aparecen en los medios de comunicación, y después me cuentas.

    • davenielsen78@hotmail.com / Aug 15 2012 11:07 am

      Hawking is overrated. He’s still likely a genius and has made important contributions but he’s not, as many believe, the equal of Newton or Einstein. There was a Star Trek TNG episode where Data played poker with Newton, Einstein, and Hawking – Hawking didn’t deserve to be at that table. Well, neither did Data really. ;-)

  456. counseldew / Jul 15 2012 8:30 pm

    IQ may not be related to contributions-this is widely known. Newton smart? Sure. In how many areas? Surely, he wasn’t a Leibniz-contributing in many areas.

    Your list is fine, for a list. Why is “overrated” even a concern unless it bothers you? Who cares? “Their” “greatness” says nothing about anyone-think how overrated Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi may be on some lists.

    Take a breath and fughetaboutit…

    • Hello / Jul 28 2012 2:42 am

      Couldn’t agree more with this post. What a stupid idea in the first place. All these people contributed something and should be praised, what exactly has the clown who wrote this article contributed?

  457. itsnobody / Jul 6 2012 8:54 pm

    Can the people who disagree with my list come up with anything better than ad hominems or personal attacks without refutations?

    I wouldn’t really mind personal attacks if they were accompanied by actual reasons or refutations, lol.

    It’s so boring to see personal attacks without refutations…

    I guess this clearly shows the level of intelligence that those who disagree with me have…

    • John / Aug 10 2012 7:20 pm

      I agree with this in some parts – certainly not Hawking and Einstein. You evidently have very little knowledge within the world of science and physics. Simply by having a look at the wikipedia page of Albert Einstein one can see that he has his name on many, many discoveries/contributions. Now you say that he got many of his ideas from past scientists such as Faraday, Gauss etc. but this is what causes me to say that you have no knowledge of physics. For one to take up on what these scientists did and make huge contributions to science from taking up on what they did, as Einstein did, requires ingenuity, for sure. I know this because I am in fact a doctoral physicist, having published maaany papers. You certainly have no knowledge of the profoundly complex mathematics that Einstein would have had to deal with to build on previous work and come up with what he did. Theoretical physics requires, and the scale with which Einstein conducted theoretical physics requires extreme ingenuity. Fool.

      • James / Aug 11 2012 2:38 am

        You are one of my favorite people on the Internet right now. From one doctorate to another, thank you for your erudite destruction of this person’s ridiculous thoughts

    • Anonymous / Dec 22 2012 4:50 pm

      Clearly you have not read the comments. There are many, many refutations, which you seem to have conveniently ignored, due to the fact that they would disrupt your introverted, narcissistic, uninformed view of the world. You are hypocritical and biased, and you will not allow anything to interfere with your set views. Therefore go back, and read the comments again. Perhaps this time you will notice the solid wall of evidence against you, placed there by reasoning, impartial persons.

    • Anonymous / Feb 3 2013 7:29 pm

      “truth thrives, breathes, and lives off free and open criticism…”

  458. Anonymous / Jul 6 2012 6:01 am

    Back to special school for you

  459. eldenelmanto / Jul 2 2012 10:01 pm

    I have to completely agree with this list!

    • Anonymous / Sep 19 2012 11:06 am

      I see you created another account just to agree with your own posting. Either that or youre every bit as much an idiot as the author.

  460. Anonymous / Jun 23 2012 6:21 pm

    The only non-genius on this page is the author of the blog…what an ignorant dumb ass.

    • Jose Garcia / Jul 4 2012 10:32 pm

      I agree with you 100%

  461. Anonymous / Jun 23 2012 12:44 pm

    You sir are retardet!!!!!

    • Anonymous / Jan 25 2013 6:22 pm

      I am about to tell you something which should be of great interest to you, and that is that you, sir, are a nitwit!

  462. Anonymous / Jun 21 2012 1:13 am

    One of the most idiotic blogs ever.

  463. Max / Jun 17 2012 6:05 am

    Da Vinci overrated? l0l at u fools who believe so. go check where our present anatomy knowledge comes from. the anatomy contributions he had gave is so advanced that it is even still used by scientists of the present age. though he failed in many of his inventions but let it be reminded that many of the present technologies were based on his designs including his failed “helicopter”. and pls remember that engineering today stems from many numerous IMPORTANT failures that it has reach such a sophisticated level in the modern era. in the area of physics many may not know but he is the first ( or at least by far) to understand the Laws of Friction. this knowledge predates that of Amonton’s by 150 years. leornado was described as a a master of mechanical principles. He utilized leverage and cantilevering, pulleys, cranks, gears, including angle gears and rack and pinion gears; parallel linkage, lubrication systems and bearings in his inventions. he was a master in geology, cartography and hydronamics and many more other areas. so please tell me why is he not a genius.

    • itsnobody / Jul 6 2012 9:24 pm

      lol…what advanced anatomy knowledge?

      Many of Da Vinci’s anatomical drawings were highly inaccurate and contained many errors, but since Da Vinci is so overrated when Da Vinci makes errors his fans/society as a whole just says “oh well it’s Da Vinci”.

      This guy Da Vinci was like one of the biggest idiots in history.

      As for Da Vinci’s supposed Laws of Friction, they are simply 2 statements, nothing like Newton coming up with a whole mathematical model and proofs to support his statements. But since Da Vinci’s fans aren’t very intelligent they probably watch TV and think “all Newton did was say I think gravity exists”.

      If making a vague statement qualifies you as the one who first discovered something then we should think that the mathematician Brahmagupta came up with gravity first.

      Since Da Vinci made lots of false statements and wrote a lot it wouldn’t be surprising that he wrote on something resembling friction.

      If making failures is so important then why not celebrate all the other figures who made failures? The media doesn’t.

      Da Vinci’s failed helicopter design is so laughable I don’t know how he gets credit for a helicopter. Eventually anyone without knowledge of Da Vinci’s failed sketches would’ve came up with it.

      There were many polymaths in history, like Al-Biruni. Da Vinci is just the one mentioned the most in the media. Al-Biruni’s achievements arguably outshine Da Vinci’s.

      • Hello / Jul 28 2012 2:48 am

        “This guy Da Vinci was like one of the biggest idiots in history”

        LMAO, this clown continues to make himself come off as an uneducated teenager attempting to engage in discussion on matters that he clearly has no knowledge of. Did you forget the period Da Vinci lived in? Of course his drawings were gonna contain inaccuracies. Your opinion isn’t even worth taking seriously at this point. You made yourself look uneducated in the original writeup, but these responses prove that you’re clearly an uneducated, pseudo intellectual idiot. Thanks for the giggles.

      • Max / Jul 29 2012 1:07 am

        @Hello, you should seriously check up on your info. My bro is a surgeon and so he does know a lot about anatomy and its history. I confirmed with him on da vin cis anatomy sketches that his anatomy knowledge were still being used this days, THAT ALMOST EVERY BODY PART, EVERY MUSCLE WERE 85% accurately drawn at least except for the women’s womb. so get your facts right

      • TB / Aug 2 2012 7:42 am

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17907305 – Read this. Undoubtedly Leonardo was far ahead of his time in knowledge and research on human anatomy. However, as an overall genius, he probably is overrated, probably also due to him being surrounded by many myths etc.. But nevertheless an important historical figure who made important contributions.

    • Hello / Jul 28 2012 2:50 am

      Max, don’t attempt to reason with this thing. It clearly lacks the intelligence that it would take to comprehend your well written argument.

    • davenielsen78@hotmail.com / Aug 15 2012 11:09 am

      Our knowledge of anatomy doesn’t come from DaVinci. By the time his notebooks became known others had done much more accurate work in that area.

  464. ballpointpen / Jun 12 2012 5:40 am

    “If Watson and Crick didn’t discover the double-helix structure of DNA then virtually any other biologist(s) would have given the data.”

    You see, this is what happens when non-scientists who think they know something stick their nose in. Getting the data doesn’t mean diddly squat; look at any serious journal guidelines and you will find that they say that having produced the data alone doesn’t even merit being included in the list of authors.

    Franklin had the data for 8 months and did nothing with it. Crick took one look at it and knew what he was seeing.

    Kee-righst, it’s enough to make a cat laugh. Leave science to the scientists sweetie.

    • itsnobody / Jul 6 2012 9:37 pm

      Thanks for the laugh.

      You mentioned Crick and not Watson in your statement fool. The overrated figure I mentioned was Watson, not Crick.

      Also where did you get this laughable idea that “Franklin had the data for 8 months and did nothing with it”? Franklin had completed manuscripts which included a double helical DNA backbone by January 1953, and her two A form manuscripts reached Copenhagen one day before Watson and Crick completed their model. So where did you get 8 months of doing nothing from?

      Also 8 months in the scope of human history is basically nothing.

      The empirical data clearly supports my hypothesis that basically any biologist or group of biologists would’ve figured out the DNA structure without Watson.

      The DNA structure contribution is really just something that happened by more luck and chance, not actual authentic genius.

      Also why are you talking about the inclusion criteria for? I never claimed Franklin should be forced to get credit or whatever.

      There were many people involved in the history of DNA like Phoebus Levene who is basically ignored.

      The only thing enough to make a cat laugh is how you are so unusually idiotic yet confident in your statements.

      Leave science to those who understand science, not to those who confidently make verifiably inaccurate statements.

      Your argument clearly demonstrates why scientists regardless of what authority they have should be FORCED to come up with empirical observations and valid reasons to support their assertions.

      Science has nothing to do with what some authority figures think, lol.

  465. Daftk.net / Jun 7 2012 9:00 pm

    I’m way to lazy to argue on such a pointless, ranty site, so i’ll just give my personal opinions.
    Actually, after i saw that you were talking about “geniuses” not contributors, i immediately wrote this sentence. Please define genius for me Mr. Nobody in life. For me, you can only define it if your a neuroscientist in the future.

    The ones i agree on: Bill Gates(having other people make stuff for you and buying other people’s stuff doesn’t show a single thing about intelligence, at least with my neuroscience), Pythagoros( okay let me say PYTHAGORUS – there hasn’t been a single shit comment saying that he isn’t overrated so far), William Sidis,(okay wikipedia defines him as a learning prodigy; I don’t see any contributions, nor anything denying your arguments. I didn’t even no who this totally-forgotten guy was ).
    Conclusion: The reason why i agree with you is because these men are overrated. They’ve done nothing real in there lives so this moron(who’s a nobody in life) can actually understand what they’ve done so he is actually correct.

    The ones I disagree: Einstein(he’s contributed so much that this margin is not big enough to fit it lol),Stephen Hawking(i think the reason why you think he’s overrated is because you can’t understand what he’s done), James D. Watson.
    Conclusion: So can you please stop with the argument “Sorry, but doing this shows no signs of genius, I don’t give i fuck of what else he’s done, because saying so, would make me wrong and i’m biased.” So you’re saying that doing one thing that’s “slightly hyped” means he’s done nothing in his life.

    Please click on my name, for more information.

    • Robben / Jun 8 2012 12:25 am

      @daftk.net first the link you posted (your name) is not working and second Please provide the list of all Einstiens contributions. He contributed as much as a normal physicist generaly do. Einstien is a very very overrated person due to media coverage & glorification as he was an outspoken supporter of ZIONISM. The cynical and henious political movement of Zionism. The Zionist control the 97.4 % of world media.

      • John / Jun 24 2012 2:16 am

        The fact that you misspelled Einstein’s name twice in your comment indicates to me that you did not carry out proper research.

  466. me / Jun 5 2012 7:18 pm

    This list needs more Richard Dawkins

  467. Anonymous / May 31 2012 8:08 pm

    iq has nothing to do with intelligence

  468. Robben / May 27 2012 10:55 am

    @anonymous the moron here is you first Einstien was a Physicist and also knew that the universe in expanding as the equations of general relativity suggested it but due to his rigid thinking he declined the idea. But later that idea was discovered by Edwin Hubble and proved Einstien to be a narrow thinker. This is what i meant by he couldnt see the obvious ie general relativiy clearly mentioning that the universe is expanding but he discarding the obvious idea. Now coming to your next part i didnt called Einstien dumbass fool the words were for skarn86. So you cant read. I said skarn86 the dumbass fool not Einstien the dumbass fool. After calling skarn the dumbass fool then i started to talk about Einstien. The person who should leave these science topics and discuss pop culture topics is you and not me , i provide reasoning for whatever i say so keep your mouth shut

    • Anonymous / May 27 2012 11:53 am

      My bad, your awful grammar through me off.

      • Robben / May 27 2012 12:47 pm

        Anonymous talking about grammer is a method to misdirect from the issue that Einstien is an overrated genius. I hope this butthurt Einstien fan gets some good reasons to disaprove what i and itsnobody has said.

      • Anonymous / May 27 2012 12:57 pm

        Youre clearly the butthurt one, getting fired up over the fact that one physicist receives significantly more attention from the mainstream than another. What a stupid thing to get angry about.

      • Anonymous / May 27 2012 1:04 pm

        By the way, I actually think Einstein is overrated by the mainstream and wasn’t nearly as brilliant as Newton. I only called you out because your bad grammar led me to believe you thought you were smarter than Einstein.

      • Z / Jun 9 2012 2:53 am

        Clearly Newton was dumb until an apple hit his head…..

  469. Robben / May 27 2012 10:51 am

    @anonymous the moron here is you first Einstien was a Physicist and also knew that the universe in expanding as the equations of general relativity suggested it but due to his rigid thinking he declined the idea. But later that idea was discovered by Edwin Hubble and proved Einstien to be a narrow thinker. This is what i meant by he couldnt see the obvious ie general relativiy clearly mentioning that the universe is expanding but he discarding the obvious idea. Now coming to your next part i didnt called Einstien dumbass fool the words were for skarn86. So you cant read. I said skarn86 the dumbass fool not Einstien the dumbass fool. After calling skarn the dumbass fool then i started to talk about Einstien. The person who should leave these science topics and discuss pop culture topics is you and not me , i provide reasoning for whatever i say so keep your mouth shut.

  470. Robben / May 26 2012 10:34 am

    Einstien is nowhere near Isaac Newton but some fools who have zero knowledge of Physics compare the two. Isaac Newton was a very open minded person and challenged traditional and age old concepts such as the concept of ether. Whereas Einstien when became recognized and famous left his open mindedness and became a narrow thinker. Einstien denied the idea of expansion of the universe when the equations of general relativity clearly suggested it and instead introduced a concept of cosmological constant. But later when Hubble made the discovery that the universe is infact expanding then Einstien called his foolhardiness as the biggest mistake of his life. Another thing that i believe separated the two and made Newton way greater was the authorship their works. Isaac Newton was the sole owner of all his gigantic works. Whereas Einstien works were collabrated with many people such as with Indian scientist S. Bose with whom he developed Bose-Einstien statistics that describe how bosonic particles behave. He worked with Podolsky and Rosen to discover the EPR paradox. Etc. Another point he lost debates with Bohr at Solveys confrence unlike Newton who always used to win debates with his contempraries such as Robert Hooke.

    • skarn86 (@skarn86) / May 26 2012 5:33 pm

      So to you recognizing you own mistakes and foolishness when proven wrong is a sign of narrowmindedness?

      Interesting.

      • Robben / May 27 2012 3:01 am

        @skarn86 the dumbass fool Einstien was compelled to accept his silly mistake because he remained in constant media coverage. He was narrow minded as he couldnt see the obvious i.e the equations of general relativity suggested the universe is expanding but he introduced an imaginary concept to fit in his rigid belief. Einstien also never accepted the copenhagen interpetation of quantum mechanics when all experiments prooved it be correct another example of his narrow mindedness and rigid thinking. Dont get butthurt skarn86 when your crap hero’s true face has been unmasked try to live with the facts. If you cant then GTFOH.

      • Anonymous / May 27 2012 3:42 am

        Robben is a moron. “he couldnt see the obvious”

        And how obvious would these concepts be to you if you hadn’t read about them in your text books? And you calling Einstein a dumbass fool is basically claiming you consider yourself to be smarter than Einstein, which is laughable and exposes how much of an idiot you are. Your opinions on this subject shouldn’t be taken seriously, go discuss pop culture or something.

  471. Robben / May 25 2012 8:22 am

    Awesome blog. This is great work itsnobody , you provided good reasons for what you wrote unlike most of these low-life fools trolling your blog with personal attacks.

    • Anonymous / May 27 2012 1:00 pm

      Another person blindly praising a blog that brings up some interesting points, yet clearly uses a lot of misinformed arguments and poor reasoning.

      • Robben / May 27 2012 2:07 pm

        @anonymous what are the misinformed arguments and poor reasoning in this blog , can you please figure out some of those for me , as i cannot see any.

  472. Anonymous / May 17 2012 1:01 pm

    i am really sorry but,every body knows that Leonardo da vinci is a pure genius,pure genius way ahead of his time ,and thinking that he is just a loser is extremely ABSURD!!!

  473. tbtf67 / May 16 2012 1:16 am

    I’d say Hisham Fangary pretty much summed up what I had to say about the article. As with most everything, I agreed with some and disagreed with others. I stlil found it pretty looney tunes that Da Vinci or Einstein made it onto your list…

  474. Anonymous / May 11 2012 2:55 pm

    Sidis predicted black holes at the age of 21, 40 years before the term was even coined. In this same book, “The Animate and the Inanimate” he concluded based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics that it is much more probable that the universe is eternal, which has recently been proven using images of distant galaxies and their redshifts. Mind you this was nearly 100 years ago. Around the age of 22 he left academia to live a life of solitude.

    • Anonymous / May 27 2012 2:56 am

      Yet more proof that the person who wrote this article doesnt really know what he’s talking about

  475. itssomebody / May 7 2012 3:21 pm

    Youre reasoning for da vinci is bad. The man was a polymath, so simply attacking his impractical designs for inventions doesn’t prove he was overrated. You merely discredited one aspect of a multitalented genius.

    And do you honestly believe you possess the intelligence of any of these people? I pray you dont.

  476. a guy who likes learning / May 7 2012 12:20 pm

    Dont feel bad for the Da Vinci fans, they were neither offended or affected by your embarassing, dimwitted article. They simply disagreed and moved on with their lives.

  477. stephen / May 7 2012 8:35 am

    To summarize, you’re an idiot, your opinions are a joke and lack logical reasoning, get over the term “ad hominem”, it doesn’t make you look smarter, and there’s no point in providing valid reasoning to disprove your laughable article since other people already have, just to have you respond by calling them idiots and ignoring their points while reiterating the same weak arguments you made in the original post.

    Bye bye pseudo-intellectual.

  478. itsnobody / May 7 2012 2:48 am

    I won’t really have that much time to respond to comments for a while. I feel bad for the Da Vinci fans, but I guess what someone considers to be an overrated “genius” is subjective. .

    For all those who disagree with me, I encourage you all to question, criticize, and scrutinize the things I say by providing valid reasons to support your assertions (not by simply throwing personal attacks at me or some other substance-less statements).

    I’ll be back later…

  479. Smart person / May 6 2012 7:45 pm

    I knew from reading this guys responses that he had to be a college student. Only a college student would post an article on a subject that requires a level of knowledge that he doesn’t possess, have his arguments refuted by people who are clearly more qualified to talk about said subject, and then assert his own superiority while simultaneously tossing immature insults. It’s clear this person is an idiot, the only question I have is is he really so stupid that he’s completely obliviously to how foolish he’s made himself come off as? Thank god this is an anonymous blog.

    • itsnobody / May 6 2012 7:55 pm

      Like who? No one has refuted any statement that I have made.

      Your rant about me being immature or whatever is just the same typical lame argument ad hominems.

      If you all have disagreements with my statements then please try to provide valid reasons to support your assertions rather than just throwing personal attacks at me.

      I don’t know why you fools still don’t understand that personally attacking me does absolutely nothing to refute any statement I made, it’s just an ad hominem.

      It’s no wonder that modern science has turned into a laughable popularity contest, the fools only talk about what authority the person has rather than what valid reasons support an assertion.

      With your level of stupidity I’m sure that you really believe that personally attacking me is equivalent to refuting a statement that I made.

      It’s so boring and repetitive to read substance-less comments.

      • Smart person / May 6 2012 8:06 pm

        Wow, this guy really loves the term “ad hominem”. Clearly he thinks it makes him come off smarter, when he’s made it clear that he’s nothing more than a dolt with delusions of intellectual grandeur. A pseudo-intellect in the purest sense. And did you read the entire response field? A few people wasted their time refuting your idiotic arguments, to which you simply threw childish insults and ignored the points they brought up which exposed your ignorance.

        It’s also clear you can’t take criticism as outlined by your inflammatory responses to the people who rip your arguments apart and make you look stupid.