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…



Leave a Comment
  1. Anonymous / Jun 10 2018 7:48 pm

    There’s a reason the most brilliant genious that did most contributions to mathematics, physics, and engeneering as a whole are not recognised by everyone, is that people who work in the media so as the regular person have little interest in gauss/euler/tesla achievements. Engineers/mathematicians/physicians pay much respect for those unrecognised geniuses. And thats the thing that matters.

  2. P H / Mar 22 2018 6:27 am

    You’re fucking retarded.

    Without Einstein you have no computer chips with which to type on a computer and post this article.

    How much of a contradictory and non-contributing leech can you fucking be?

    Your dad should have pulled out.

    • Anonymous / Apr 23 2018 5:30 am

      Yes there ediotssssss!!!!!!

  3. AnonymousRex / Mar 15 2018 1:53 am

    This article is overrated. The writer comes across as a ‘hater’ that will never amount to anything. Sucks to be ya…

  4. Anonymous / Mar 14 2018 9:07 pm

    In the world of science not one person is the flame carrier. Each scientist utilizes theories and equations and evolves them from the knowledge of others and makes a contribution in the world! This was the most ignorant blog I’ve ever read and your name “it’s nobody” it’s precisely what you are! What a waste! People who sit online to critique things they don’t contribute to are aimless and counter productive!

  5. JB / Mar 4 2018 1:12 am

    Scrolling through the comments, I see that no one brought up how ridiculous it was that this stupid author said that Da Vinci couldn’t be smart because his machines failed half the time. That is a complete bullshit point to make whether Da Vinci was as smart as most people think or just some 140 guy. No matter how smart you are, your experiments will never work the first time, or the second or the tenth. Failed experiments are not a sign of unintelligence in the slightest. Another thing this dumbass said was that Edison is overrated because he worked with other people on his projects. Again, it doesn’t even matter if that’s true because that is a very illegitimate point to make. I think I’d be wasting my time to explain why but just to humor you all: An architect makes plans for a building’s layout. Then construction workers build what he or she has thought of. It is a completely outrageous statement to say that the architect is dumb, or at least not as smart as you would think, because he has other people working with the plans he or she has created. Now, granted, Edison maybe could of done it all on his own, but his progress would have been a lot slower. But yet technically an architect could possibly do an engineer’s job, but that would be time-inefficient. There are many other ridiculous statements this guy makes that would take a long time to explain, but I am sure you all know what they are. Lastly I completely agree with what an anonymous user posted last year: “I believe that you might be insecure about your own intelligence and you are hating on these great people because you either feel that you will never amount to anything they have done or you just wish to create commotion. Instead of writing stupid articles on the internet, you could be trying to outshine these supposed ‘overrated geniuses’ who are all truly brilliant.”

  6. prabh Dhillon / Feb 26 2018 9:36 pm

    i totally agree with your list except the case where you put einstien , i mean that guy made a discovery which changed science,the person who i think should replace einstien in list is Tesla,Tesla is too overrated

  7. Matt West / Feb 22 2018 1:06 pm

    Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? -Morons!

  8. Amberlyn / Feb 8 2018 8:59 pm

    Nikola Tesla was the genius of all times.

  9. Zerato / Jan 7 2018 8:44 pm

    first of all I agree to 90% with your list; #2 is absolutly deserved and the things about Einstein, I even didn’t know at all ( but Faraday was great anyway; wondering that he is so unknown ).
    But in the case of Leonardo Da Vinci I disagree with the placement. I don’t know where you found the “shit” with an IQ of 200+ but he should have an IQ of ~150.
    So he is not a super-genius, but still very intelligent.
    I don’t know why he wasn’t that good in mathematics but he seemed more inspirated by creative things like engineering or painting and it seems so that the mathematical level he used was all he needed ( not necessary to work on the theoretical things, he would never use ).
    To his engineering skills and the implementation, which seemed not to work; actually they did. There was always a little mistake built-in .In the case someone would find his plans, the person wont be able to create it working, except he understands how it works and correct the mistake(s) ( so this is kinda genius because he was coding his scripts, so nearly none was able to use them except him ).
    That’s the point I absolutely disagree with your statement. I agree that Archimedes was a much better engineur, but you probably miss that Leonardo never had the opportunity to get any education at all. Archimedes had the library of Alexandria and Newton was able to enjoy a much better education then Leo.

    The last point I want to mention is the Da Vinci code. Probably you are right and it is overrated, but he was able to create his own code none is able to decode until now. That’s the reason ( probably ) that some people ( or better to say idiots ) think he had an IQ over 200. It’s just the mystical and impenetrable what’s the people make hype him ( but sure it’s not that great at all ).

  10. fred / Dec 19 2017 3:53 pm

    You got two things drastically wrong, but otherwise I agree with your list. Albert Einstein was hardly overrated. The other thing is you left Steve Jobs off the list. Jobs belongs in the #1 slot, having not invented jack shit, and was a liar that misrepresented himself, and gave the actual inventors zero credit. Steve Jobs was an asshole.

    • Randy / Jan 6 2018 11:01 am

      come on Fred, attacking a dead man That’s pretty bad. what did he do, steal your wife away Don’t blame him You never could hang onto any woman other then the fat ugly ones have another drink and go back to sleep

    • Christoffer Graby (@CJGraby) / Mar 13 2018 7:46 pm

      He might’ve been an asshole and not a science guy, but he was a marketing genius. He understood what people wanted and needed before the need had even arrived. From the PC to iPods and iPhones. I’m no fan of Apple, but he was a genius. Overrated, sure, but a genius nonetheless.

  11. Michael King / Dec 17 2017 3:41 am

    There are many here I would question, except Hawking. I can’t find one thing he actually has done that is proven or even matters. I think his condition makes him more famous. He is most famous for black holes and theory of universe. These are things that really can’t be proven right or wrong and more yet don’t matter one bit. My life will not change one bit if the “big bang” theory changes or theory of black holes. It’s hard to beat a life of the millionaire who’s biggest achievement is theory of space and time.

    • Anonymous / Apr 23 2018 5:40 am

      Shut up

  12. Asmodeos / Dec 12 2017 4:53 pm

    Your list is utter bullshit; you completely disregard many of the names on this list’s contributions to fields beyond science (cause I hate to tell you dumbfuck, but the fields of science and math are not the only fields indicative of intelligence). Ben Franklin made a number of contributions to diplomacy, foreign policy, journalism, and many other fields. Thomas Edison and Bill Gates were both incredible businessmen who made contributions to science and technology as a business. Furthermore, you claim that physicists and mathematicans don’t regard these individuals in high esteem, however, you never quote any specific people or organizations – and any one could look up the big names that cited as superior. Finally you didn’t mention anyone of true intelligence as an overall comparison particularly anyone in a variety of fields. For example, you didn’t mention Thomas Jefferson or John Adams (both exceptionally eloquent and influential founding fathers) or Henry VIII a brilliant writer and speaker who was particularly knowledgeable about catholicism and politics (read his discertation on MLK’s actions during the Protestant Reformation) or Euclid or Archimedes or Descartes or Turing or Ptolemy.

    • Anonymous / Apr 23 2018 5:43 am

      Dddddammmm y o u said it all

  13. Don’t worry / Dec 8 2017 11:00 am

    Bro, if you’re gonna talk shit about some of the greatest contributors to society, then at least learn to use proper grammar and punctuation. I’m impressed by your ability to google big names in math, science and philosophy to try and prove your point, but all you did is prove that you’re a moron. The fact that Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wasn’t mentioned once shows how foolish this list is.

  14. kile bowman / Dec 2 2017 12:54 pm

    lmau ur dumb

  15. Paul Noblin / Nov 10 2017 2:10 am

    The Key to the Universe;
    Revelation One Nineteen
    Write down a brief account of your day, your problems that day, and a list of tasks to do the next day.
    ©1985 Paul Noblin

    Read Rev.1:19 (KJV).
    Write down the past, present, and future.
    Align your inside mind with the outside world (Reality including Christ), and you will be one with All.
    Telepath Love and Perfection.
    You are the center of your own Universe.
    Reprogram yourself.

    Warm Regards… Paul.

    • Mal Laverack / Apr 24 2018 8:44 am

      Wow. What have you been smoking?

  16. Bryan / Nov 2 2017 9:48 pm

    Please tell us once more about someone being ignored by the media. I dont think you said it enough.

  17. amira / Oct 30 2017 10:31 am

    Thank you for this article. i found your article because I am doing a very rigid research on TESLA. I am planning to learn from TESLA’s works and discoveries and articles and interviews. Thanks to you, I found more people “Real geniuses” that are worth my study. In addition to TESLA, I will learn from:
    Alan Turing,
    John von Neumann,
    Steven Weinberg,
    Edward Witten,
    Michael Farraday,
    James Clerk Maxwell
    and Al-Jazari.

    🙂 🙂 so excited!
    I still am a fan of Einstein. so will learn from him too.

  18. Anonymous / Oct 23 2017 6:45 pm

    The writer has an IQ of 50. GFYS.

  19. PermReader / Oct 2 2017 1:08 pm

    everything was prepared just for Einstein,poor chap.

  20. just a kid :) / Sep 25 2017 11:11 am

    Think carefully before bashing those who made the things you take for granted in your life today possible.

  21. xenotypos / Sep 9 2017 11:40 am

    Regarding Einstein, Poincaré already had all the equations regarding special relativity which will led to restraint relativity. So Einstein also used Poincaré work (not just Riemann), amongst others.
    That being said, I don’t think he really deserves to be on this list, his ideas were still genius, like it or not a genius isn’t only measured by his IQ. Being able to see from another perspective is a form of intelligence and I believe that Einstein had that kind of talent. Maybe he’s a bit overrated though, since people are generally unable to remember any other name.

    I agree about all the other ones, especially about Franklin, Edison and Pythagoras. I’m not totally sure about Leonardo since he was an artist before all, and being a genius in arts rarely requires intellect. That being said, it’s true that his “genius inventor” image is greatly exagerated.

  22. Anonymous / Aug 22 2017 8:20 pm

    Stephen Hawking is not overrated in the least, I bet you can’t name a more important contributor to the study of black holes than him. Einstein is also a genius, I defy you to create an equation more groundbreaking than E=mc3. You should also be thanking Edison for all he’s brought to us through science. Michio Kaku is also more of a genius than you will ever be. Bill Gates is not considered a genius because of his computer advancements, he is considered a business genius because he created Microsoft and made himself the richest man on Earth. It is also your fault that you can not interpret the genius that Leonardo da Vinci put into his art. I believe that you might be insecure about your own intelligence and you are hating on these great people because you either feel that you will never amount to anything they have done or you just wish to create commotion. Instead of writing stupid articles on the internet, you could be trying to outshine these supposed ‘overrated geniuses’ who are all truly brilliant.

  23. Anonymous / Jul 10 2017 1:09 am

    You should do an article about the top 10 must under rated geniuses of all time. By the way I greatly enjoyed this one.

  24. Chris Fleetwood / Jul 8 2017 1:26 pm

    The author speaks finatically about athiesm, To this question, who knew more about the universe
    than Carl Sagan. He said when once asked about if he believes in God, as to question of athiesm,
    “an athiest” he said “must know more than me, because to think their is no God he or she must have had absolute concrete proof their is no God.” Sagan said it is dogmatic to presume there is no God, and that things, e.g. structurs of the universe, can be solved and explained without a God, and that it is better to be undogmatic, unless, or until you get concrete absolute proof there is no
    such thing as God, whether Judas, Christian, Islamic or whatever religion. As Sagan said, if there are a million planets out in the universe that have civilizaitions more advanced than us and capale of interstellar travel, (i.e. only one planet for every 1000 galaxies), they would each need to build 10,000 ships a year to travel to other neighbouring civilizations, every year, which would mean 1 percent of all matter in all suns of universe, would be needed if every planet with interstellar travel technology were to visit every one of their civilized neighbours, which is impossible, something which cannot be done. Therefore the chance that their are UFOs with extraterrestrial beings inside is very rare, in fact near impossible, i.e. infinitesimally slight. The paradox that Carl Sagan stated was, that if we have regular visitors, then we are somewhat unique in the cosmos, i.e. our planet is special. But if we are special and unique, then it is very rare that there will be other planets as civilized as ours, therefor it is extremely unlikely aliens would visit us, as their technology would be lower than ours, and most life planets would be simple life forms far more primitive than ours. On the other hand, if we were not unique, and their were many other planets with civilization on, then why would they visit us, when their are millions of other civilized planets to visit, as we woyuld be no more special than us. Therefore in both cases, it is extremely unlikely aliens have visited us now, or ever in the past, or ever in the future. And if any do, it would be an extremely rare event, require some far advanced civilization millions of galaxies away out in space, that somehow allots our visit one time, on some extremely rare occasion, but they’d probably still find they can’t do it, due to distance etc, and the fact that their are billions of other planets that they could equally visit. Most planets with life would be simple life forms, living as far prehistoric simplicity, unable to even reason about the heavens, let alone travel. Simple creatures in primitive alien jungles of the likes of earth 300 million years ago.

    Sagan concluded not long before his death, that he did not doubt that extraterrestrial beings exist
    out there in the vast regions of space, but they don’t visit us. And that the subject of UFO’s, (a
    mix up in the fears of the Cold War documenting mostly explainable lights from balloons, space
    debris, metals falling from high speed aircraft, blinded vision from sunlight on windscreens, causing files of countless unidentified air vessels that were even more exemplified to the public by the fact they were kept from them, in top secret), and Sagan said whether unidentified or not, they certainly did not contain extraterrestrial pilots.

    • Paul Noblin / Nov 10 2017 2:35 am

      I have contacted The Children of the Sun who ride light waves into all points in space and time instantly and are us a million billion generations from now.
      Place a fork atop a glass of cool water. This device is a Quantum and String Energy Generator and Motor.
      As mass accelerates towards the speed of light, time slows down until the mass is frozen at zero degrees Kelvin. In the light waves, mass melts when Sympathetic Vibration occurs.
      Sub-atomic particles called feathers or snowflakes have no mass but contain schematic or blueprint instructions on how to build the matter from which it lives. It is like leaves being swept away by a river or the wind.
      Most people believe that the past is fixed, the present moves along a continuum, and the future is subject to probability. The past changes and is in flux. The continuum of the present moves in irregular patterns. The future may be fixed. In the lightwaves, feathers and snowflakes travel into all points in space and time instantly until objects of similar vibrations are encountered. Then they get excited and slide out of light and appear in reality. This helps Multi-verses from colliding.
      A fork atop a glass of Water really makes no sense. As the Children of the Sun ride the lightwaves, they can not categorize such a device. They search for who created it. This is how I contacted The Children of the Sun. This fork atop a glass of water is also a telecomunication and teleportation device. After a long flight, water is welcome.
      Think about what I am saying and then think big.

      Warm Regards… Paul.

  25. Chris / Jul 4 2017 10:26 am

    As wozniak said, a true engineer doesn’t take money, he’d rather die poor and happy, than be an
    executive salesman, unhappy but rich. You know, Wozniak started in 1968 building a computer, long
    long before gates started. Gates was programming a computer in 1968 at 13 yr old at some college
    campus, will Paul Allen about 18 at the time. Paul never gets mentioned, he did as much as Bill.But Woz, he actually built the electronics, he wasn’t working on someone else’s machine. What Bill
    and Paul had was an altair which ed roberts built, they programmed it. Woz and Steve produced the
    first home computer as a product, you could buy. They concentrated on graphics and colour and
    games. Woz built the machine he wanted personally, he didn’t want to sell it. Steve jobs was a
    salesman, he was brilliant at talking, he new a bit of electronics, but he was never interested in
    it, he was more into sales, ringing up customers. Woz was an engineer, 100%, knew a 1000 times more than steve in electronics. Woz got no credit at all, example at atari where steve jobs worked, they wanted breakout building a video game in 1976, Steve wozniak designed and built it, steve jobs wire wrapped it, Atari gave Steve jobs about 5000 dollars for it, Steve Jobs gave Woz about 375 dollars, and told woz it was 750dollars, This was typical of Steve Jobs, Woz most of the time didnt know, but didnt care, to him Jobs was his friend and he needed him to sell the thing, as woz had no social skills, customer skills. steve jobs always took 10 times more, and gave woz a little 10% share, In the end Steve returned, woz walked out by about 84, as Job’s parties and nature were too finatical and the fun of engineering in the old days of the early 70’s had gone. As the years passed Apple got more successful, and Steve and Woz got rich, woz amssed about 100 million dollars but gave huge ridiculous shares of it away to people who helped, in the end Steve Jobs when he did Next for Disney, and returned to Apple amassed an incredible 10 billion dollars and 20 billion dollar estate, so as the years went by and steve jobs ended up with 100’s of times more than Woz,woz was never interested in money, he was generous and was more interested in engineering, building the things. Making it work on a tv, this was 1976. Bill and Paul rode on top of IBM, it was IBM’s machine, and that wasnt till 1981. But if you go back years ago, there were loads of computer pioneers, e.g. Cray with his supercomputers. All the early pioneers worked on partial differential equations, and solving roots of equations. Universities funded multi thousand dollar projects in 40’s dollars, because Scientists want to solve equations in physics, for important defence jobs, ballistics, solving quantum equations. The computers of the 70’s were kids machines, for games, they werent for maths hardly, even though they programmed it in, nobody hardly used it, they just programmed video games all the time. A computer was supposed to be for adding up thousands of numbers. Steve jobs and steve wozniak had their own internet, using free calls on the phone across the world, and woz had terminals he actually talked to universities and high organizations, way back in 1975, 74, woz had his own net and screen, it was about 80 baud or something but it worked.wozniak gets no credit at all, and in fact is hardly known by most people, he was an absolute genius, working in the dark in his garage, with bits of wire soldering, in an age when we mostly had black and white tvs, and all you had were complex tv engineer manuals, and getting hold of chips was near impossible, due to the price. But I don’t think Woz wanted fame, he was just happy to mess with his logic circuit.

    Hertz and Maxwell led to the discovery that sparks across a gap could be made to go across another gap close by, without the wires touching. Without these 2 men, Marconi years later couldn’t have invented radio. To me Faraday did so much, he established electronics, he was the father, he
    invented it, inductors, and his ideas led French instrument maker Hippolyte Pixii to build a dynamo
    in 1832. Capacitors were first built in the mid 1750’s but they were leyden jars, but yet the unit
    of capacitance is measured after Faraday, demonstrating the work this great chemist pioneered in
    it, (this staggering guy even got a wire to constanly move round in circles by itself way way back
    in 1822, people in the lab could see it back then it was a minitiare, one wire electric motor, Tesla worked for years on this idea making it bigger and bigger, and stronger, with thousands of
    wires, and built the first heavy industrial electric motor in 1889)

  26. denson smith / Jul 4 2017 1:50 am

    You are assuming that the use of genius is as in psychology which has a very specific and different meaning than in general English:

    “an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.”

    For example, Thomas Edison’s most important invention of an efficient model for the research lab. Genius!

  27. Chris / Jun 29 2017 7:49 am

    Regarding the authors religious opinions mentioned in his further information of the site,
    It stands to reason that if Muhammed performed such and such a miracle, or Moses parted the red
    sea, or Jesus did such and such, or El the sumerian god caused such and such a flood, or Svargog
    the ancient russian god caused the winters to be warm in the russian forests 1500bc, or such and
    such an icelandic god made a bridge across the arctic sea, or such and such god of the american
    indians gave food to the starving in 1300ad, or buddha did so and so, or a chinese god did such and such in 2000bc, ore some norse viking god, helped them cross the poison sea,of all these miracles, no matter what the religion, people had to have been around at the time, to write down the events, whether on tree bark in the russian forests, or clay tablets in babylonia, or papyrus on the shores of the red sea. Hundreds of people witnessed the events, and afterwards for many years everyone would soon figure out if it was true or not in conversions and evidences at the time. Otherwise they would have destroyed the books at the beginning. And any liars would have been dealt with at the time, and any books written would have to be backed up by the further witnessing of other events these miracle people did. As hundreds of years passed, and the stories became more myth like, and exagerations were added, the plain facts would have been heightened into something more magical, but the essence of the story would still be there. And there are as many religious books as scientific books, therefore why should one lean to one more than the other, we should take a dual viewpoint, taking both into consideration. Clearly the miracle workers were beings from another world, given that we now know the harsh reality of nature, how difficult it is to fly about in the sky, move immense rocks, part oceans, cure the blind, etc, we know how impossible this is,but we can judge by what we know to be possible by looking at scientific achievements in genetic engineering as described by Crick, and by knowledge of physics. In all cases these beings are not able to move planets, or create them , we can see that, but they are able to do smaller things, that could be possible by external machines high in the sky, or hidden somewhere. Also we note, that there have been many civilizations, the greeks, the romans, the babylonians, the egyptians, the civilizations of the americas, the ancient civilizations of russia, the changing civilizations of the chinese. And in a lot of cases a dark age seperates each epoch, and in a lot of cases a holy visitor has arrived and disturbed things, and before science was apparantly evolving, then it was cut off back to intense religion. E.g. if one were to go back to Roman times, one would be surprised at the advanced things they could do, far more civilised than the vastly deteriorated
    records we have. Similarly in the egyptian times. Further back, because of the time of deteoration,
    it becomes more difficult to see the earlier civilizations so we falsely assume there was none, or
    very little, due to the fact that only hard implements like axe heads, skulls, shaped stones survuve, giving us a false impression of a stone age, when even iron would have rusted away. Similarly now, we believe we have worked it all out, just as the ancient greeks thought, and there is nothing more to do, this is a false sense of superiority, a lack of comprehension of past technology, as we can see in the electric door bell of 400bc. If one looks at Hero of Alexandrias drawings, one can see it isnt far removed from the mechanics of today. They still had houses, curtains, bowls of food, read things written down, had bowls of water, sat on couches, they were human the same, but we assume they were not in some way because of the tattered manuscripts that we have that have luckily survived 2000 years. We can see when we look at the heavens, what is possible and what is not, there cannot be a God, who opens the clouds, and appears with his crown, as what would he stand on, how could matter suddenly be so huge so that it would form Odin’s house full of chairs tables, and yet contain a vast space containing just spherical bodies, this is impossible, unless you were to believe 100% in magic, and that everything was a dream. There has been no evidence, and when asked, God never gives proof, or moves an object to prove to us, therefore, and he would know how many times we have tried, and not answering after years upon years, a human being soon gives up, similarly with ghosts, most of the time there is an explanation. Sometimes there is not, it is only these few sometimes, that we can go on, and from all the observations, we know that there are such things as balls of light that float, certain wordings that seem to link up, electrostatic interventions, there is certainly something there, however it is not human as we think, it is electromagnetic. But there are certain times we get evidences from mediums that cannot be anything but the truth, again here it is indication something is going on, and there is some kind of other world, but we need to understand how this is possible, and we must be real about things, and use the scientific discoveries we have made to know what and how this can happen, or where exactly these spirits are, how they can be in parallel to the three dimensions we live in, how these balls of light float around, how electrostatic beings exist, and where, and how do they communicate with the electricity in the mind. In 95% of case it is hogwash, and we can clearly see the falsities added by the human mind in accounting for there witness of a ghost, or supernatural, but it is the last unexplainable 5%, that must be true. Perhaps again it is an alien intervention, a more advanced race, just as when we observe a hill of ants, we can see them climbing trees, they cannot see us, hardly, but 5% of their minds recognizes JUSt, that we are there, and the nest starts to move away slowly. Similarly religious documents speak of the age of the universe, it is always a few thousand years, what does this mean, we can clearly see, by geological evidence, and the speed at which continents move, and planets move, that it has been here billions of years. Well it can only mean, that something happened 6000 years ago, or whenever the date, some visitor, or some commencement of knowledge, like the serpent in the tree, perhaps he was an alien visitor who gave adam and eve the truth and knowledge. OTher things puzzle me like the first fish that came out of the water, would have choked to death, how did they start to walk on land, even if you take mudskippers into consideration that breath both air and water, it is hard to see how just frogs and mudskippers led the way to the dinosaurs, and fish remained in the sea, there must have been godly intervention 300 million years ago, to enable creatures to appear on land, and that god would not have sat in a front room with table chairs wine glasses and a bowl of fruit, certainly not 300 million years ago, he or she would have been an alien being, a supreme intelligence who visited and enabled the process to happen. There are thousands upon thousands of strange evolutionary anomilies, e.g. how did kangaroos end up in australia, and be confined only to that place. Possibly aliens can electrostatically give messages or transmit some kind of emotional message to the mind, who knows, perhaps this is the ethereal world. We know by Maxwells equations that electromagnetic exists throughout the universe, and we know it goes by 1 over distance, not 1 over distance squared, therefore it can transmit extremely far, without any noticeable reduction. Aliens may have supercomputers so advanced they could control billions of life forms. And there may be thousands of other types of aliens who visit the animals, e.g. whale gods as seen in the star trek movie. Or e.g. goddess of the bees, how do we know that wasps arent beings from the far far future from some far off extreme galaxy who have come back in time. They certainly look and sound like tiny atronauts. We just dont know. But only feasible explanations must go into contemplations. We need technology, and monks in churches, although knowledgable, do not provide us with a suitable understanding of how the planets move, or why if we travel round the earth we meet at the other
    side. It is foolish to say the earth is flat, and god sits on a throne, and the devil underground
    with a pitchfork. It is true we should follow the rightious path, and head for the good, but it is
    clear that certain things are wrong in the scriptures, and the monks should realise this. We do not
    say they are bad people, they certainly are not and work for the good, and we totally need the
    monks and the nuns and the holy people, and we respect them, we just try with modern technology to make sense of it all in some consistent manner.

  28. Chris / Jun 29 2017 5:41 am

    Despite my attempts to stay on the subject at hand of the ten people displayed unfairly in this hanging gallery, I have been distracted from the main topic due to the authors continual mention of athiesm in many of his outer topic screens. Therefore I shall give my views on this subject. I am not a religious person at all, and never go to church, I may walk in occasionally once a year, or hang about a church graveyard every week talking to firends at the pub, but I believe there is a God and Heaven that can perhaps hear us, and probably we have an afterlife, however, being a very rational thinker, I can’t do so without my own interpretation of exactly how such a thing could be possible, therefore over the years on a night looking and thinking of the stars I have pondered this question many times, and I have come to my own conclusions on it which I shall here give. Whether it be right or wrong, I don’t know. Thanks to the tremendous calculations of Einstein, the great endeavours of Hawking to understand Black Holes and Singularities, the great inventions of Edison that give us light to think, the great ability to program computers and calculate and look up scientific information thanks to Gates, and the great inspiration and hope given by leonardo, we are now able to have a much clearer picture on the truths of our heavens above. We know that Aristotle said that the seven heavens were the Milky Way; for beyond it he could not see, as he had no machines for the doing, therefore we can safely assume space out there, in accordance with our forefathers and foremothers who wrote so many texts, is in fact heaven. Now using modern scientific thought, it is clear that since life is scattered throughout the globe, down to the immense depths of the ocean, that even though the other planets of our solar system appear lifeless, that given enough star systems, with their arrays of planets, eventually, after millions of planets, we will reach ones with life on, far out in space, perhaps a thousand light years. They will certainly be far far more scarce than most of the scientific predictions, as human beings have the tendancy to hope for more, as was evidenced before the moon landings, when patrick moore etc and others envisioned the posibility of life on the moon, as was told by H.G Wells in first man in the moon more than a hundred years ago. Similarly the false assumption there was life on mars. Therefore this life on the planets a thousand light years away, must be of a very simple form, algae, and simple creatures, using different molecular bases, living in a totally different atmosphere and environment, but nevertheless and eco system that has thrived for hundreds of millions of years. Therefore it is clear, that if we take the whole milky way, 30 thousand light years to the centre, and consider it as a whole, there definately will be several planets with life on similar to ours, and out of these one or two at least will be more advanced, by millions of years. Therefore, on this planet, clearly they would have built interstellar spaceships long long ago, millions of years ago. But as we know from the Einstein Rosen Bridge equations, although it is possible to traverse time, the difficulties in creating stable worm holes would be unimaginably immense, unbelievable pressures, and would have to be held in situations such as close orbits to the dangerous fields of Black Holes. Such a task would take thousands upon thousands of years of construction and mining for energy resources, requiring millions upon millions of alien beings to build such an unimaginable device, let alone its upkeep. We know then that these 2 or 3 planets, on our assumption may have set up many of these Einstein Rosen Bridge Time Holes in the Milky Way in many places. Travelling close to the speed of light, a dificult and dangerous task in itself, alien beings over millions of years, would have always found it extremely difficult to stabilise their return time. Since the voyage out, would cause the people on the spaceship to see time passing extremely slowly, and the ones they leave behind, including the ones everywhere else in the galaxy, will have seen hundreds, and thousands of years past. Therefore aliens who have tried to cross the galaxy, would have always had to return through the worm holes in order to go back to their original time frames. Therefore they would have had to travel to specific sites in the three dimensions of space. It is clear then, that we would be lucky, very lucky, if an alien visitor would have the chance to reach Earth. This is evidenced in the fact we only get a miracle visitor every 1000 years or so. At which the whole world goes into uproar, science collapses in shock, returning to medieval thought in a dark age, and the world returns for hundreds of years into religion, as the story, becomes more mythological generation to generation as the tale is told book to book, which slowly deteriorate, and spoken word to spoken word. These visitors as can be seen in the religious tales, always arrive from above, in the heavens, always perform miracles, generally help not hinder, and usually say they are part of a higher god. Over the aons of time, they have arrived sometimes as goddesses sometimes gods, but they are always demi type gods who speak of a ruling god. As to how they appear human, is incomprehensible, since it is clear, an alien being from so far away would definately not be human. These are biological advances of an incomprehensible genetic engineering nature, which only the realms of the books of Crick, can dare to speak of. It is clear these aliens can open up the skies with magnetic forces, seperate oceans, do miraculous things, since they can voyage the universe. It is also clear they always seek to stabilize the situation on the earth, i.e. only as though regulating it, keeping it running sort of thing. This clearly they do not often, and it is clear they are limited in some way which is natural, as they are living beings after all, and cannot control the immense forces of gravity, and must yield to the forces demanded by the planets and other heavenly bodies. However they regulate the societies , perhaps more in their thinking. Then they disappear, never again to be seen for hundreds upon hundreds of years. Which is natural because they are going through extremely difficult time warps across space trying to return to their planet on the other side of the galaxy. It isn’t because they want to leave, they have to, to live, in their own natural environment. Similarly they would do things on other planets, that need help, probably millions of planets they help with totally different primitive alien races. The things the alien does when he or she arrive, may not be intended to appear as a miracle, but, to us, we see it as such, because we simply can’t comprehend what is happening. Similarly, across the great bound of 2 million light years of empty space to Andromeda Galaxy, great difficulties of travelling will always have been experienced by aliens, however over a million of such far galaxies, with similary 1 or 2 planets of immensely advanced civilization, there must be greater
    Gods, races of hundreds of millions of years, that have developed greater engines, and great Time
    Holes in space, that actually reach galaxy to galaxy, using the Einstein equations we know such a feat could be done. These may visit, very rarely, such as may explain vast events e.g. how we survuved the ice age, were visitors here 40,000 years ago, who gave us knowledge of the triangle and square, and ability to hunt, did it just happen that we became higher than apes to such a level
    we ruled other animals, probably unlikely, there was no doubt intervention. These greater Gods, may be where we get the idea of the one God, who created the heavens etc, a long going story from 10,000 years ago etc, e.g. how did babylonia, the sumerians suddenly have civilized towns,
    architecture, farming, knowledge of the wheel and how to make bread, in only what appears to be
    4000 years, after 10000bc, when before hand the evidence shows they were in caves. It could have
    been an early visitor. Going further out into space, across the vast superclusters of galaxies, we
    enter a place where superclusters can themselves be counted in their millions. Here, clearly, an
    odd planet in all these billions upon trillions of planets, may have had decades of billions of years ago some even greater God or Goddess, who with his or her demi gods, had long since, billions
    of years ago set up Time Holes across vast supercluster distances, such that they were able to
    actually orbit the entire observable universe, and may have even witness the birth of our own sun
    and the earth, such be what our extremely early ancestors of the caves 2,000,000 years ago, may
    have told their offspring in some mumbled monkey like form, or by some markings on the rocks, as
    evidence has shown in rare examples of the uldavi gorge, that there were once creators of the earth and the sun, so that we get these eternal religious message in all tribes and religions of the Sun God, and the one who made the earth. It may be possible, some evil alien caused the death of the dinosaurs in 65 million years b.c., or that other visitors intervened the help evolution along,
    e.g. when needed example the first fish with an eye, the alien would know, half an eye for millions
    of years is no good, or help in assuring the flight of a bird, since a flightless bird for millions of years would serve no naturally selective ongoing. Indeed in records that go back in the ancient Egyptians and Sumerians, as we read deepr into their lists of Gods, we see that they are actually clearly named, and have their origins fully described, so much so, a blurred picture can be built up of events 10,000 years ago, such as the sinking of Atlantis, the planet Mars, Noah’s Ark, the flood, the serpent in the tree, giants from the sky, 500 year old people, all these things have connotaions that in modern reflection, can be understand in terms of beings from space. And we actually have names, Aphrodite, Isis, Osiris, etc. of these demi gods, written on the tombs and walls of egypt. We have diagrams of stars carved 3500 years ago on egyptian walls. We have passages that face the direction of the constellations of the past. During the medieval ages, religion took on its own interpretation, but the origins of these books lay in these ancient temples of the far east. Temples are now known in south america, with the incas, therefore we know possibly aliens visited there, since there is something not human about the aztec drawings, almost as if they were taught something from another world.

  29. Chris / Jun 28 2017 4:28 pm

    The author requires opinions on Athiesm. I don’t know, I suppose scientists, particularly those now, are not very religious because they have to concentrate carefully on the structure of the universe at times when things were under tremendous pressure and heat, and particles of high velocity. In doing so they can’t bring God into the equations. Whether they go home and believe in God I don’t know. I don’t know if there is life out there in space, who knows, but nothing has been seen, even on Mars.
    My opinion is that in the great depths of space, e.g. the Milky Way, there are billions of stars and planets, and there are billions of galaxies. I don’t doubt that there will probably be countless supreme intelligences dotted here and there in remote places in the vast universe, beings from other times from billions of years ago, beings from just as far in the future. There may be some that travel through time and space. Definately, over the observable universe I’d say there’d definately be a god here and there in the vast unknown, probably thousands of Gods, and Goddesses, and millions of alien demi God beings amongst the different galaxies, some with intelligences so great they would be unimaginable, incomprehensible. And some of the closer ones no doubt may have
    visited us on occasion of the aons of time. On the subject of religion, I don’t like to enter the subject, but all religions seem to have a common thread deeply entwined in their myths, why shouldnt there be, people of the way gone past , our foremothers and forefathers of ancient times wouldnt have created stories for the fun of it, let alone pass them down to their generations. The stories have been exaggerated many times over the years it is true, but fundamental truths will still lie at the bottom, in their origins. Many tribes believe in the mother Goddess. Mathematicians and Scientists don’t appear to focus on religion because it hasnt any logical facts based on proof, and the whole basis is to build on truths. So any thoughts of supernatural or magical beings or historical myths, legends, Gods, Goddesses have to be put aside, removed from the mind, in investigation that has to be logical and systematic. This is not a fault, or want of a scientist. Some are strong athiests some are not. Certainly the physics television programs always mention God somewhere along the line, it has always been a more friendlier universe with idea of God being there.

    Davinchi said once that if you were to stand on the Moon, the Earth would appear blue, because of
    the seas. That was a great thought for late 1400s. Most of his inventions were not used because his
    papers were kept secret, but many got out early on, e.g. he invented scissors, mine bucket lifting machines, the ball bearing, the rack and pinion system of cars, and many others. All these were
    taken from his designs very early on. Other things such as the parachute, were kept hidden.
    Newton was a deeply religious man, he studied the Bible to intense levels, e.g working out the ancient revealings of the Temple Soloman, many extreme religious thoughts and cults and witchcraft
    he also studied. Sidis could read a newspaper at the age of 18 months, and by 2 years of age he
    was reading the New York Times, and typed on a typewriter, and sent a letter to Macy’s to inquire
    about toys. He also typed letters out in French, I mean at 2 years old, this is ridiculous. I read
    about him when I was a kid back in 1979, it isnt just a recent thing, this guy was known, well
    known. He gave a 2hr lecture on the fourth dimension at Havard, when he was 12. The New York Times kept doing newsflash reports on Sidis, in the early 1900s. He studied Homer’s works at age of 4, this is ridiculous, imagine the genius of this guy. At 8 year old he did a log table to the base 12, can you imagine how hard that is. In Base 10, victorian guys who had no computers, took years, many man years to finish these books. General relativity gave the correct orbit of Mercury, therefore it is needed to give the facts on what is going on in the universe, how bodies are moving, evolving. It is like understanding Newtons laws of gravity in the early 1800’s, they didnt say Newton was wrong, years after he had gone, they needed to know how planets moved, and where they would be and eventually got to the moon, similarly now, Einstein is long gone, but we need to know about galaxies, and supernova, and neutron stars and things further out. It is foolish to say we don’t need it, that would be like a guy in 1820 saying we dont need newton’s laws.

  30. Chris / Jun 27 2017 8:30 am

    If we say that a magnet attracts a compass needle, we could say the distance the needle traverses
    is in proportion to the strength of magnetic gravity of the magnet, but this is not saying the two
    entities ‘distance’ and gravitational pull are in fact the same real things in reality. The VALUES
    are the same, but the things themselves are different. Also the author says everything consists of
    photons, where is the evidence for this, a photon has never been seen. Even in an electron
    microscope, an electron cannot be seen, only in electron scattering, when billions or trillions of
    electrons are seen as a whole. Even atoms have not yet been seen, only the believed traces of them. Similarly, only the believed traces of hypothetical particles have been seen. It makes sense to say energy is everywhere yes, but identifying it as particular particles has no scientific proof. We
    cant see what is going on down there, it is too small. Einstein put forward the idea of a photon,
    in order to explain the effects seen in the studies of Planck in blackbody radiation. It seemed at
    the time, to be a way to explain the phenomena, but he quickly left the idea, as can be seen in his
    books afterwards, and searched for a classical viewpoint which he believed made more sense.
    However, Planck, Bohr, and schrodinger, carried on regardless of Einsteins views, and went on to
    write the first eqautions of quantum mechanics. Although quantum mechanics continued to provide the answers to many questions in science, and is proven to work effectively, Einstein till his dying
    day refused to believe in it, saying ‘God does not play dice’, in other words, you cannot say
    something is wave like then particle like at will, as to what suits the experiment, and you cannot
    have any true physics with something where one value can be measured of a things velocity so long
    as we know nothing of position or momentum etc (I am not a physicist, but I know it is on the lines
    of these conjectures). In other words, Einstein searched for an xyzt universe that was as the plain
    geometry of Euclid, which made sense. And Einstein did not realise his theory would lead to the
    idea of an expanding universe etc, and afterwards maintained in his books, that clearly the
    universe was infinite in all parts, and we must keep this view. Anyone with common sense knows, if
    it were finite, where would it be, inside what. Similarly with time, Einstein never said there was beginning or end, it was conjectured later on, using the expansion to calculate the contraction of
    the universe. Hawkings has no trouble in discussing a universe that had a beginning and nothing
    before it, probably because the maths says so, but as discussed entities are not equal just because
    of formulae which equate the things on both sides, this is the very fault of making equalities on
    both sides of equations, e.g. gravity and time. Therefore one wonders if Hawkings is a genius at
    all, when one looks at a clock, and knows by common sense, that the hand always ticks forward, and forever, there is a tick before, similarly one knows that one can always proceed with the foot
    forward, there is no end forwards or backwards out in space. Einstein had difficulty in understanding Big Bang theory, expansion theory, and quantum mechanics, and didnt want to understand it, that is why most people trust him, years after he is gone. This is why we trust Euclid and Archimedes, as what they talk makes sense, the mass over volume of a body is proportional to density. Euclid saw the world as 3 dimensions which makes clear sense, time is a passing we see. It can be used in formulae to discuss events in the future or past, as Einstein showed, but Einstein never implied that Time is a thing like xyz distance, he consistently spoke of the word ‘relativity’, meaning time is ‘an observed thing’ by a being (and he constantly brought hypotheical beings into his examples), and can only be observed by a conscious being, since it is not a solid thing, time is an imagined or mentally observed thing of the awareness. He equated it to gravity, but not as an entity. He did not bring black holes into the idea, other people later on conjectured them, using his formulae. The Bohr model was a quick idea invented around 1910, while Bohr was discussing with Einstein a possible structure for matter that would work, this does not imply, and by no means did they both imply that such a model existed, it simply served as a useful means of understanding matter at the time. Einstein as a result became known as the mad scientist later on, because of his non conformations with quantum physics, a subject, that even today no physicist can get there head round. A quantum mechanics book looks like a television engineers manual, it is filled with conjectures, and probabilistic formulae, which is why Einstein did not entrust himself with its dice playing rules. Leonardo, was a geometer, experimented with weights and measures along rods, he saw the world as 3 dimensional, he was a man of sense and ingenuity of the finest degree. Einstein wanted his physics to be like that of Galileo, simple. He did not want the conjectures that were later brought into it. Faraday searched like Einstein to unify gravity and electromagnetism. The unified Field theories at present in modern times are in their hundreds. No-one knows which one is right, but we certainly wont get anywhere, by putting down great minds as Einstein, Leonardo, or great mechanical inventors as Edison, or great mathematicians as Hawking or microbiologists as Crick and Watson, or destroying the souls of great pioneers like Gates who have given us tools to calculate the heavens, or by putting down the ethics and spirit and wonder at geniuses like Sibis, or by putting down people like Kaku who help us understand the universe, or by rattling the foundations of Pythagoras from so long ago, or destroying the wonderful story of Franklin and his kite. We need these guys, and whether athiest, logical like Spock, or religious believers in God, humankind will always look up to them, in the journey for knowledge and truth.

  31. Chris / Jun 27 2017 7:29 am

    Explanation to the author, of why gravity is not the same thing as time. In general relativity, if
    time and space is contracted near gravitating bodies, then t is in inverse proportion to g, as so
    is distance, but this does not mean time equals gravity. In the same way if speed= distance over time, this does not mean time = distance. It is a fallacy to relate variables that equal variables, to mean entities that are the same as other entities. Einstein said that ‘how we observe’ or ‘are aware as a conscious observer’ of passing time, varies according to our speed, or closeness to a gravitating body. This does not mean gravity EQUALS time and space, as a thing. Just as in the equation s=1/2 * at squared, here in the galilean law, galileo is not implying that distance EQUALS acceleration , as an entity, only that it obeys, in value, to it, in proportion. If I say x=age of a boy, y=age of the father, that y=x+20, and if I say the mother’s age z=x+20 also, this is not implying by z=y that the mother actually IS the father, as an entity. Similarly in general relativity, even though Einstein lays it so gravity affects time and space, by proportions in the formula, he by no means is saying that space, time and gravity are the same thing.

  32. Chris / Jun 27 2017 6:40 am

    Einstein is wrongly stated as the Father of Quantum mechanics. He initiated it, but then was a life
    long objector of it. He came up with the idea that energy can be quantified, bringing the idea of a photon into perspective, and suggested that this energy be proportional to frequency. All these
    ideas Einstein made around 1905-1910. Because, arguments were going on in the universities between Planck, Einstein, Bohr and many others. Einstein couldn’t answer Plancks conjectures, but suggested to him the aforementioned conjectures. Planck then went off and came back with his equation, which really started it all in quantum mechanics, as Planck had no difficulty in seeing the world from a quantum framepoint. Einstein talked with his friend Bohr all the time. Bohr came upo with the plum pudding model of the atom, and Heisenberg set forth his uncertainty principle, but it was Schrodinger who truly initiated Quantum mechanics in the end with his wave equation. Einstein at this point went off at a tangent, never going into Quantum mechanics anymore, telling everyone he disagreed with it, and that nature wouldnt take on such structures, i.e. he was searching for a
    Galileon Universe, in classical form. However, the principles of relativity were so advanced that from 1920 onwards up to the present day, relativistic calculations have to be done daily in quantum mechanics in order to calculate particle trajectories in accelerators, and also the bombardment and
    study of particles. Tesla it is true was an unmentioned, unrewarded genius, and Edison didnt show
    compassion towards animals, one of his failings, however, Tesla did not produce significant inventions, they were more like ideas in his head. Edison finished the works. As far as religion goes and medicine, women philosophers were far more productive of these works. E.g. Hildegard of Bingen. Sadly, women scientists were pushed away from publishing any works in the past, and so we have none of their works to go on, however, even today, as can be seen in the 10 men displayed, they are not mentioned, dispite their being more women students entering science now than men. We are left with hundreds of books written by women on religion and medicine, and the rest thousands upon thousands of stories. What mathematicians we had that were women, were certainly silenced, this is a sad viewpoint, and certainly affects our view of the universe today, and how we study geometry. There have probably been as many geniuses women,as men, if not more. So many people who cretaed the computer are not mentioned, e.g. Presper Eckert in the 40’s, Konrad Zuse in the 30s, and the inventors of the silicon chip, e.g. Royce Noyce, and then engineer Gordon Moore. Also the guy who invented the 4004, in 1971, Ted Hoff, and the TI man Jack Kilby, who invented also the chip in the 50’s. The japanese scientists don’t get mentioned, who worked on elctronic calculators, e.g. the guy who invented space invaders and Pac Man, Tomophiro Nishikado. Or what about the guy who invented Pong for the atari, Al Alcorn. Out of the ancient philosophers, Euclid is the one who has helped us most, with his geometry, and Archimedes 2nd. Euclid isn’t mentioned enough. I don’t think logic should be brought into the argument, as human insight into these people is more important. don’t see how Gravity has anything to do with Time, as the author says. Whether this is because of my lack of understanding of some more recent ideas in general relativity I don’t know but to me they are certainly not the same thing, and I never heard Einstein mention of it. Gravity is associated with time in the equations, but certainly does not equal it; time is a concept of its own. It is true Feynman established many views on the universe, and was a great physicist. There many not appear to be many applications of general relativity, but certainly in the future there will be, e.g. in time travel experiments by creating worm holes in space, if it is every done one day hundreds of years in the future. But there has been no evidence that I have seen ever, of anyone writing papers and making works, as that of Leonardo, he surpasses them all. And in the question of Calculus, we know now Archimedes was working on a simple form of it, around 230bc as discovered in the famous Byzantium Greek Palimsest of around 950ad. And we know also that drawings which after scrutiny were later identified to be simple aeroplanes were found long ago once in an underground ancient egyptian tomb dated about 1200bc. Also once years ago their was some other site of I think ancient Greece, or it may have been Egypt, probably around 400bc or earlier, that had a diagram of an electric door bell, which describes how he gave people shocks who he didnt like. There are many other discoveries like this. Also People like Philo Farnsworth who invented television, also didnt get credit these deserved. Mostly the one who died in poverty are the ones who get no credit, however Faraday was poor all his life and got plenty of credit. Mauchly, although clever in his own right and no doubt cam up with many ideas for the ENIAC, and was unfairly associated with wartime affiliations, copied most of the ideas for the computer off Atanasoff, who he visited on several occasions and with Atanasoff’s wife over dinner, copied many of Atanasoff’s drawings, as Atanasoff was always unwittingly keen to apraise his inventions. Atanasoff never received the credit he deserved, for the famous computer he built that solved equations. Also Vannevar Bush and his differentail Analyser, and Claude Shannon who worked under him and established information theory.

  33. Chris / Jun 26 2017 6:39 pm

    In the comments, I noted that the author of the article studies and is an expert in the logic of an
    argument. , mentions on many occasions his opinions on atheism. I shall therefore give opinions on
    this regarding the 10 people in question., The 10 people in question were certainly religious, Edison believed in a supreme intelligence, but not in a God on a throne giving orders for punishment or reward. Einstein believed in Spinoza’s God, i.e. a God who appeared in the harmony of things, rather than one on a throne. Einstein, although he stated this, was often knowd to bring God into things, saying ‘God wouldn’t agree with that’ e.g. to Bohr, his friend, who would reply things like ‘stop bringing God into it’. Pythagoris believed in the Gods, and worshipped Dionysis as the main one, the Pythagoreans believed Zeus sat in the throne of the Sun. Pythagoras said that the Earth was a sphere, and that the moon orbitted the earth on the plane of the equator, and that the star venus that set was the same star Venus that rose. I dont know if Sibis believed in God. Bill Gates said he was from a Catholic family, and that he says it makes sense to believe in God, but he thinks their are a lot of myths also, and isnt religious. Crick had a God Hypothesis. Hawking doesnt believe there is a God, and that the universe can be explained without need. Franklin was deeply religious, believed totally in God. Leonardo used reason rather than faith, and believed only in what he could reason out, however his paintings, e.g john the baptist and madonna on the rocks, mary magdelene, the last supper, indicate he was religious certainly to a high extent. Kaku definately believes in God, or at least something, a higher intelligence, supreme intelligence, and believes like Galileo that God is a mathematician since in Kaku’s view, the universe is mathematical(can be explained that way). NEwton certainly believed in God, and throughout his works, he mentions God as Omnipresent, especially in his Principia. I think most scientists believe in God, they just haven’t time to bring him or her into their thoughts, as they have to think rational about the mechanics behind things. It is true what the author says, probably religion started all the sciences; for in atheism there would be emptiness, no purpose to even think out things or answer questions,. Through colourful myths we are given faith to go on, and hope, the ancients must have confided in this trust, and so seeked out the truth of the workings of the universe. Religion plays a great part in the history of science, particularly with Copernicus, and Galileo who feared the Spanish Inquisition.
    On other subjects there seems to be conflicting views on Gates, whether he was fair or not, in the comments, particularly the Tim Patterson DOC affair, I think at the time, Bill had no time to think, IBM had arrived, Bill had rung up other programmers, he rang the CPM guy, and they said he was on his way, IBM went down to Gary Kildall’s house(the CPM inventor) gary was either there or out flying, but neither he nor his wife could sign the non disclosure of IBM (saying IBM could do whatever they wanted with the operating system) There were delays with attornies, so Bill waited, but Gary never signed it, IBM returned to Bill, he signed it with IBM, and he had to ge an operating system, he told IBM he didnt have one, and it was IBM who may have asked if he could get one, Paul Allen went to buy it of Seattle Products, for 50,000 dollars, at that time there was no operating system for IBM PC, it was about 1980, if you think back then, things were a little confusing, people barely understood what a home computer was. It seems now that Gates had it all figured out, I think he and Allen just knew they had to sign if IBM ever turned up.With Euler again, many formulae were the square root of -1 and formulae with the constant ‘e’ the natutral log. For real life mechanics, logarithms and complex numbers do not come into Euclidean type applied mathematics, but instead in Pure Maths. Therefore I think this is the reason Euler is ot much mentioned. Gauss, has hundreds of formulae for electrical volumes of space, but he never did world pictures, and kept his science focussed just on coils, toroids, matrices type formulae, i.e. things that everyday people couldnt get to grips with, whereas Einstein gave a world view of the whole, which people could relate to better. Faraday, again, it was very chemical electromechanical, and really only electricians could associate with it, despite being brilliant ideas. Sometimes scientists get famous because of funny things they did, this is perhaps why Franklin and his kite got noticwed more. Again it has to be remembered Hawking is Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, therefore, even though many of his works for the public seem simple, and often people put him down for maling what appear to be not very good assumptions, the actual mathema\tics has been removed from the book because it is too complex, it isnt a case of feeling sorry for him because he has a disability. Again also, it is very true Arab and other philosophers of the Far East, were great and brilliant scientists and mathematicians, which get
    pushed out of the mainstream in Western scientific history. The chinese, and Indian mathematicians
    and scientists go back to 1000bc. And as stated the arab scientists pre-dated medieval europe by 4 or 500 years. All medieval books 1400ad 1200ad, were chapters and books written by Arabian authors e.g 800ad 1000ad that had been translated from the arabic to latin. Therefore it is very true what the author says, there are as many arabian, indian and chinese scientists that dont get mentioned that did as great as leonardo etc, who hardly get mentioned. Again with Maxwell although his equations were brilliant, one can hardly go around with B and E in differential form in the head,
    unless he or she is creating some advanced radio circuit. Because again it didnt apply to the whole
    overall universe, everyday people didnt take to it, and so Maxwell was not placed in fame as a
    favorite, even though physicists recognise him as so.

  34. Chris / Jun 26 2017 1:26 pm

    Einstein’s theory of general relativity is the measuring rod of modern cosmology, without it we
    wouldn understand quasars, motions of galaxies, black holes, worm holes, white holes, neutron
    stars, formation of stars, radiation emitted, or to be able to form opinions of the birth of the
    universe. It goes on in the measurement of gravitaional waves. In fact anything to do with radio
    communication by NASA, over long distances to probes, or to and from satellites, or measurement of radio waves from stars, galaxies , pulsars etc. The size of the universe, and how it is expanding,
    were all determined by the results of relativity. In chemistry, in molecular calculations of the
    fin structure, electrons which travel close to the speed of light, need relativistic equations to
    solve them. In semiconductor technology, the velocities of particles in sub atomic region, all come
    under relativistic equations, for the calculation of the fermi level, we would have no integrated
    circuits without relativity, and all the semiconductor devices that emit or absorb electrons,
    photons, would not have been invented, we’d have no sensors based on radioactive emissions in
    gases, or indeed transmitters in infra red – e.g tv remotes, we’d have no lasers at all, lasers are
    based on photonic emissions, very fabric of einsteins equations. In fact we wouldnt even have
    television, because the photo electric effect and understanding of photons led to the understanding
    of phosphorescencse in tv’s. Not to mention all the nuclear energy we can now receive, and
    Einsteins theories, will have much more important contributions in the future of interstellar
    travel, which in the end may save the human race. Leonardo’s sketch of a helicopter in 1490, was a
    bold glimpse in his mind of the future, it would be like us drawing a picture of a spaceship that
    travels across or between galaxies, similarly the latter would not work. It wasnt a matter of
    whether his inventions worked, it was the fact that he made ideas in a time medieval, and had
    little to go on. Leonardo made many designs architectural, and for the military, crank and gear
    systems , pulleys, of tremendous complexity, and all were drawn in extreme detail. He studied
    geometry, optics, hydrostatics, and other subjects too numerous to mention. Not to mention the
    genius of his paintings, and the commisions he was appointed to. He was respected throughout the
    renaisance. The very fact his works were passed on reflects the importance of who he was. He was
    known as the universal man, meaning he studied everything, and no one has ever come near to his
    accomplishments. Pythagoras was mentioned by every philosopher, from 300bc down to medieval times, after which he was given lesser and lesser mention. He founded geomety, studied mathematics and science in Egypt under the priests, he studied under Anixamander, and was taught by Thales the old one. His works are lost, his wife Theano discover the Golden Mean, the Pythagorean Mean, the Romans strewn this equation across their temples, in the mosaics, in honor of it, leonardo incorporated it in secret in the paintings, Pythagoras, was founder of harmonics, the harmonic rations in music, without him we’d would not have majors, minors, fifths, etc in music, he defined numbers, and gave meanings to them, he laid the foundations for Archimedes, and Euclid, he brought babylonian mathematics into a cleare light, he was the greatest philosopher. In the modern world Watson and Crick, formulated the foundation of all genetic science, whether they took Rosalinds notes or not, I dont know, but their achievements were certainly staggering, to work out the biochemical structure, and folding of the DNA and RNA molecules, in the most complex three dimensional molecular model imaginable. Edison desinged electrical inventions across so many fields that the list is unimaginable, dynamos, elctric motrs, telegraphic equipment, talking machines,
    kinemascopes, electric trams, he founded the methods of electrical generation for power stations,
    pioneered early cinematography, helped in early telephone switching apparatus, there are so many
    electrical inventions that any one you can think of in victorian times, he had a go at it, all these without mentioning his contribution to light, and the phonograph. Bill Gates pioneered what we know today as the personal computer, and lay down the foundations of the operating system, he foresaw, together with Paul Allen, in 1968, a future were a computer would be in every home, and realised that dream. Continuous he developed languages that would run on microprocessors, and made
    the DOS system compatible over all hardware platforms. He built on the idea of compatibility,
    trusted in that eprinciple throughout, and brought together communicating protocols and interface
    specifications across many varying platforms into one universal platform, Windows, and made a
    platform that was enabled the invention of the internet. I find it staggering he is mentioned as
    over rated. It is true that for years Apple was a hundred times behind Microsoft, even by 1998, and
    it has been seen recently that Apple has now double the capital of Microsoft with the sale of the
    iphone. It is true that Steve Jobs was a great innovator, and Steve Wozniak a great Engineer, and
    their innovations do not exceed Bills, nor does Bill exceed them, but Bills contributions cannot be
    put down, He was a great unparalled programmer, who understood intel assembler code to the finest degree, and mastered the inner workings of the most complex and daunting interface ports, and protocols, pioneering Office packages, and Object Oriented Programming. Working under tremendous pressure of IBM’s requirements, he and his employees made it to the top. Steve JObs and Woz achieved as much in the artistic innovations of Apple computers and the iPhone Similarly, the very fact we use theirs and Bills systems and principles today, is the same importance as the fact we use edisons light, and electrical discoveries and inventions, and together with einstein, the very fact we have television and mooving picturs and recorded sound, and all founded on many mechanical discoveries and artistic ideas of leonardo. As leonardos inventions became true in the witness of the helicopter and flight, so too, just as newton led us to the moon, one day Einsteins formulae will lead us to the stars in machines that are incomprehensible.

  35. Chris / Jun 23 2017 7:27 am

    Speaking of Hawking, of the modern people Leonard Susskind never gets a mention, he knows all about quantum mechanics and general relativity, looks a bit like DaVinchi. And speaking of Bill Gates, another person who doesn’t get a mention is Steve Wozniak who designed and built Apple II the first computer for home, he was the engineer, Compared to him, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were just salesmen executives. If you download Ralf’s interrupt lists you’ll see how complex windows is underneath, thousands of peripherals, and codes for each, gates had to program his way through all that during the 80’s, an extremely boring and humdrum task that lacks innovation, when Jobs was
    doing artistic designs, gates was dealing with printer ports, rs232 ports and disk drive interfaces
    across companies all over the world each one with their own specification, to keep that up for 15
    years when everyone else is having fun with art projects and graphics and video games, AND to write it in assembler code, build all the tedious boring languages is an incredible task, even if you
    have 100 employees, gates made his way to the top on his own account. But definately Woz should get the credit, as he actually built the first computer with electronics and machine code, long before
    gates had what you could call a computer.DaVinchi will probably be remembered in 3000 years, out of them all he is the one who did most. When you say over rated I am assuming you mean in terms of comparison with other greats, as all these people are thousands of times more famous than any of us. Kaku is famous as a presenter and personality on tv, that in itself takes a lot of doing, but he is also a physicist on top who has wrote many books. Euler,Gauss,Helmholtz, Hertz, Lavoisier, Priestley, Ohm, Mandlebrot, Agnesi, Fibonacci, Julia, Shrodinger, Planck, Davy, Bombini, Michelangelo, Galileo , the list goes on, all these people except Galileo don’t get much of a mention in the media, even if they have done a lot, if it is only in one field, and not in a field that covers the universal idea they dont get mentioned. Example Anatasoff, he built the first valve computer in about 1930, people like Anatasof, are way better than people like Gates mathematically, they did equations on the computer and solved them for quatum mechanics problems in physics, similarly Blumlein who invented all the speakers, microsphones , stereo recording, recording heads, scanning circuits for tvs, radar, telephone circuits, all the boring stuff that surrounds the circuits, he did in the 30’s, no one knows about him or even heard of him. Kaku built an accelerator that bombarded gamma rays to make anitmatter in his garage whilst still at High School, that is pretty amazing if you think about it.Galileo is under rated, he doesn’t get as much attention as Newton and Einstein. That’s why we know Pythagoras must have been good, because he is still mentioned after 2500 years. He did far far more than just that equation, if you read old books, he always gets a mention somewhere or other, and further back you go the more he gets mentions. Even the philosophers in Ancient Greek Times 300BC always spoke of him, so he definately is not over rated. He had no translator for the babylonian texts, they were more than a 1000 year old even to him, all he could go on was triangles and lists of square numbers written in cuneiform on clay tablets, out in the desert, trying his best to read what it said in ancient egyptian hieroglyphs on the pyramid buildings. Pythagoras lived so long ago, even the Library of Alexandria was not built, they only had papyrus at best, and only Thales was around at the time, and he was most of the time in Egypt soind the same. What confounds me is why the author has Gates, Kaku, Sidis, Crick , Watson, Franklyn, Edison, in comparison to three greats Einstein DaVinchi and Pythagoras, the latter 3, hundreds, if not thousands of times better and more famous, only Edison goes in at 4th, the only one that can near comparison in a tiny way, and perhaps Crick at 5th who nears Edison in a small way. But Edison recieved loads of money and Gates far far more, the others were poor, so genius should not be confused with being rich, an Oil Baron can be rich but possess no intelligence. I know without Edison we wouldnt have cinema and moving poictures as he was first to do that, and he certainly didnt take money anywhere near that of Gates, Edison perhaps had a million or two, but that is nothing compared to Gates. An intelligent person is aware of taking money from people and feels guilty, and so most remain poor, yet Gates has billions and no guilt. Wozniak received about 6 million or something but he gave most of it away to the ones who worked alongside him, Jobs took 10 times what Woz received. And like you say, Gates had helpers, hundreds of programmers in the end. Kaku hasnt any money to speak of you can tell. Einstein might have had a million in the end, but he never was really interested in it, it just took it in the end so he could live comfortably. Sadis was poor. Franklyn did nothing to speak of, just stood on a hill with a kite, I cant see how or why he is constantly mentioned. Taylor never gets a mention the mathematician, also Fermat, another genius, Bernouilli, Poisson, Renoir, and that other guy who always is needed in maths Laplace. Hawkings does get more attention than he should it is true, there are many physicists today solving the universe who need mentioning.

  36. Chris / Jun 22 2017 6:14 pm

    With Hawkings, I don’t know much about his formulae enough to say, I know he can
    do amazing things with his mind, and I know in the 60’s he did some amazing breakhroughs or something, on Black Hole theory, and later on talked about Event Horizons etc (Physicists correct me if I’m wrong as I know nothing here I am guessing), I know he talks a lot about motion4d, 3d objects, what will happen at Event Horizon of a Black Hole, arguing against Inflationary Hypothesis of Fred Hoyle(again I am totally guessing here), Big Bang theory, beginning of universe events of particles, planck length minimum distance possible, this kind of stuff requires equations of immense complexity, that only people like Hawkings can grasp, so at present he is considered the only person alive that we’ve got who can gives us an answer similar or at least heading in some way towards what Einstein MAY have said, we dont know, but we put trust in him somehow to give us an answer, whether it is faith or not, we always turn to Hawkings for the final decision, and this has gone on for the last 40 years or more. But as stated in the commentators, the guy who did String Theory also did complex maths for that, and there are other genius quantum physicists who know a lot, many opinions, so I would say, yes Hawkings is definately a genius,He is over rated a bit it is true because of his disability,but he certainly hasnt produced theories that come near to the brilliance of Einsteins or Newtons, but possibly this is because of Hawkin’s disablity we’ll never know, but he cant be compared to them, certainly not when many other contenders are coming up with unified field theories across the world, but out of them all, while Hawkings is alive, he will always be the best we have got, if anyone knows the structure of the universe, he does.

  37. Chris / Jun 22 2017 5:50 pm

    Having read the article again, I can see both sides of the argument are needed so
    I shall answer the comment more truthfully this time, saying ‘everyone is a genius’ etc.
    i.e. perhaps I am not looking deep enough into the authors question

    With the modern people, it is more a question of the people being known at
    present due to their fame on television. With the people of the far past
    the Media reflects a general understanding of what these people did.
    So the moderns are in league with the old ones of the past only at present. I.e Kaku
    will not be remembered later on, although he is famous now, but no one
    is disputing his intelligence or genius. He knows all about physics. Similarly, Bill Gates, will probably be remembered for 100 years, after which real truths of more important inventors will
    be understood by the general public. We are not doubting his genius however,
    e.g. in 1975 when he compressed 8080 assembler BASIC into a space of 4kRAM is incredible,
    and to amass all that money with shrewdness is not the mind of a simpleton,
    but he cannot be compared to great scientists like Newton, or Maxwell, etc.
    He took ideas from people later on, but to begin with it was his work for years,
    racing against the clock against other competitors who could write machine code,
    and writing the most extreme code for so many different interfaces and processors.
    With Sidis, although a genius as a youngster,
    he did not invent anything, and became unknown later on.
    But Sidis is not mentioned in the media, so he is not over rated or under rated,
    he is mentioned in places like the guiness book of records.
    With Crick it wasn’t a mathematical subject, he was dealing with chemicals,
    and how they joined up into molecules, these molecules were huge.
    But again Crick and Watson can’t be compared to Newton and Einstein, certainly not,
    and certainly not DaVinci. However in the microbiology world, crick and watson are
    revered at a high level. What they did was the work of genius, but not on the scale
    of Pythagoras etc, this is ludicrous to say.
    I.e. in 2500 years they wont know who Crick and Watson were, In 50 years
    they wont know who Kaku was, in 120 years they wont know who Gates was,
    but in 2000 years they will still know the name Einstein and Newton, this is what I am
    saying. But as far as over rated underated, Gates and Kaku arent even rated,
    unless you watch a lot of television, they arent mentioned in books a lot.
    Sidis, again, he wont be remembered in 50 years, in fact know one knows who
    he is now, but he is not over rated or under, he isnt even mentioned unless
    you are reading guiness book and you need to know
    the record holder highest IQ. But we know his sister and family exaggerated it,
    but nevertheless it was still high.
    Again, being truthful, Franklin didnt do much, I must admit, he stood out in the rain
    with his lightening rod and saw sparks go down the rope, he risked his life
    many times, but people like Faraday also did lightening experiments, Faraday walked
    high mountains, risked it high precipices, visited dangerous volcanos,
    in caves and hot springs, all to observe chemistry and minerals, and I am sure many
    others around 1750-1850 were doing similar dangerous activities. As far as the work
    done by Franklyn, Volta did far more, and so did Ampere, their papers are vast.
    And Electricity was understood as far back as 1700 or even 1680, Newton talked about
    the electric fluid often in his notes.
    So yes, Franklyn is over rated, but Kaku, Sidis and Gates aren’t even rated
    But Gates is definately better than Franklyn. Gates has done far more work
    and invention. Sidis was just a miracle kid, he didnt invent. Kaku
    is a scientist, built a reactor in his garage, so inventor, but it isnt
    a major thing that will go down in history, but he is a famous guy as he is
    narrator and explainer on physics programs that people look up to. We need
    him to explain in real life terms the formulae, e.g. general relativity et
    and what Hawkings goes on about as we humble classes dont know.
    Edison will be remembered for probably about 500 years then he’ll fade out.
    He may have used people, and copied etc, but as a whole he did amazing things
    he is not over rated, would you rather have it with candles on a night?
    no tape recorder? no video recorder, and we would have dvd or cd if we didnt
    know the first principles. Someone may have come along later yes, and would have,
    but it cant be denied he did great achievements.
    Being truthful, Pythagoras does get a lot of credit, their are many
    other greek philosophers, aristarchus, cleonides, ptolemy, nichomachus, appolonius,
    the list goes on, and it is true they dont get a mention. Certainly not
    in the media.

    But in books they are all viewed the same, newton, einstein, pythagoras are not placed above in the old books of long ago, but in the media, einstein does get a lot of attention it is true.

    What Euler did and Gauss was tremedous, and the media certainly does not recognize this,
    whether it is becuse they assume people wont understand or not I don’t know,
    perhaps it is einsteins hair that acts as a humourous Scientist image,
    or newton with his apple, that is a good media story.

    But certainly not in the old books, everyone gets the same mention. Minkowski the lot,
    However, Newton was so great he certainly even in the books gets mentioned more,
    asnd rightly so he was a great man. They got to the moon with newtons laws,
    they didnt need einsteins. But Einsteins are needed now with accelerators
    and quasar pulsar measurents and satellite communications, partuicle measurements,
    and no doubt in the far future for interstellar travel einsteins laws
    will be a total necessity.

    So Newton is not over rated, Einstein is a bit over rated yes as a film character or joking kind of scientist image, and Pythagoras is a bit
    over rated. But then again you could say Archimedes with the story of Eureka is over rated, but Archimedes did some brilliant maths and geometry,
    Da Vinci certainly is not over rated. His art was so brilliant

    However having said that of Einstein, then Edison is a bit over rated too.
    There were other great scientists building inventions as good as Edison certainly.
    But I would view Einstein as far far more of a genius than Edison,
    I don’t hear the media mention Pythagoras actually, they mention Archimedes far more.

    We don’t know what Pythagoras did, but he is mentioned many many times in ancient manuscripts,
    whatever he did he was a genius, but has no surviving works to prove it.

    and his mastery of mechanics in a time near medieval.

  38. Chris / Jun 22 2017 2:54 pm

    I don’t ever get involved with these internet blogs, but having read this one, I have never seen such a great argument, of many clever minds joining together in a discussion. I think the conclusion is that every person mentioned in this discussion, including the ones of the author are important. Einstein was an absolute genius, so was Da Vinci, I can’t see how anyone would dare put them down, Newton whether mentioned by the autor or not again, genius.
    Pythagoras, you have to understand all he had was the walls of egypt, the carvings, and the babylonian tablets to go on, he made sense of it all and devised his theorem, in a time so long ago that it is staggering that he is still mentioned, proving he knew so much, he also went on to found a school of philosophy, aristotle, archimedes, euclid and other great scientists of the time followed him, so he must have wrote many works, now lost in the aons of time. The medieval manuscripts bear witness to pythagoras’s talent, in many areas, e.g harmonics.
    Bill Gates, again, here we are dealing with someone modern, and it is difficult to compare to scientists, but the man got rich, so he must have had the sense and know how, and he knew the complexity of the computer in a time, when we barely had colour tvs, programming in machine code, and then continuing to manage a business through ups and downs, we use his system, how can he not be intelligent?
    That man, Kaku, or whatever the name, yes, I have seen him on telly, well he is an intelligent guy, and like you say, has social skills, and a personality, why isn’t he intelligent, he knows advanced physics.
    Faraday, Gauss, Euler, Fermi, Maxwell etc all these were genii, of the first degree.
    Euler was a mathematician in depth, extreme. Maxwell, how on earth did he do those equations.
    Without Gauss and Faraday we’d hardly know anything in electricity.
    Hawking, the mathematics for Black Holes, and thoughts on Planck Length and Big Bang etc is
    extreme, and he is respected in the scientific community. The guys who did the DNA,
    crick an Watson, everyone knows it was a breakthrough, they spent years fathoring it out in 3D models. Sidis, although he was put down, he went to university at about 11 years old, got a Phd at about 14, spoke about 10 languages, at only 9, taught physicists 4d motion physics at uni at 10 year old, how can people say he was not a genius. Franklin, started all the electric theories off,
    risked his life in thunderstorms, at that time they only had volta, in fact I dont think Volta had even started. All they had was leyden jars. Edison, I don’t know why people think he wasn’t a genius, the amount of inventions he did partuclarly, phonograph, light bulb, there were people before him, but the point is he finished the work, he went out layed cables in the streets of broadway before any electrician did, he was the first, to set up lights in the streets and houses.
    1000 patents, it is unimaginable, even to get 1 patent is intelligent.
    Da Vinci, was not just a great artist, he was an engineer, mathematician, physicist, anatomist, geometer, mechanic. In fact there was no art or science he didnt have a go at. He has always been recognized as a genius.
    On IQ, it is true what the general people are saying about IQ tests, they measure a persons ability to solve puzzles, particularly shapes, and there are many other forms of intelligence. I don’t think it is a good measure of intelligence, as some people who got a low IQ are often geniuses
    who simply can’t be bothered with the test.
    Einstein formed the special and general theory relativity. Most people understand the former, but the general theory, if you have ever looked at it, you’ll see it is extreme mathematics, and not many people in the world understand it, many claim to understand it when questioned. But as one
    of the commentors said, it consistently goes on today, to be proved right, years after he is gone.
    I think collectively, this blog has been a discussion of all the greats, and it has brought up
    many other people. When the author mentions Euler as being great he is certainly right, as Euler comes into everything. Euler had about 40,000 sheets maths formulae at his death it was extreme. And again Gauss, the author is right, Gauss’s maths was excellent,creator of matrices. He made us understand charges in different shapes, many formulae, top guy.

    Riemann, again, mentioned all the time by the comments after, he was a genius of mathematics, that Einstein based it all on, and Minkowski, a 4d space time genius, Maxwells equations are fundamental to physics in every way, and how he created them is impossible to undertand, knowing he only had Faradays work to go on.
    Archimedes, again , a giant in geometry, his principles go on, 2300 years after he laid them down.
    Al Jazari and all the Arab mathematicians were geniuses, and it is true they are under-rated, and their works should be brought more into the light. The Arabs were calculated maths and geometry 400 years before even euclids elements were brought to the Western World. Babbage a genius, built the computer in a time when there was only Mechanics, Von Neumann another, who solved numerical problems of calculations for physics formulae and made programs for the computer in the 40’s, Hero of Alexandria the great engineer, mechanic, who made diagrams of machines that seem modern to look at yet were done 2000 years ago.
    Now when modern people are brought into the equation it is hard to compare to these giants, but
    who today is the genius, it is true Steve Jobs invented the Apple II, or rather it was Woz’s brilliance as engineer, both of them were clever. At that time, we thought a tv was for watching
    and most of us had black and white, to think you could do coloured dots on a screen was
    something out of imagination and simply didnt enter our heads. Let alone something that added up sums. That guy, Kaku, is a respected person we trust, who appears on tv, and gives us a picture
    of physics so we can understand it, he is able to talk to us like you say, he has both social and scientific skills, he is a genius. For the DNA thing, I dont know much about nanobiology, genes RNA DNA etc, but I know it is extremely advanced, and in the sense of Chemical-biological science, what Crick and Watson did was amazing beyond belief. Like you say, special relativity is used in GPS, people think it is general relativity, this is because Einsteins theories are so advanced it is difficult to understand. Like you say, he laid down principles that we use in electronics, e.g. the light emitting diode is the photoelectric effect, and in quantum mechanics, which he and planck are said to have started. It is true Faraday also tried to unite gravity and electricity, and probably Maxwell was trying the same. Leibniz, again, genius, who did as much on calculus, if not more than Newton. Tesla, genius, who saw things in his head like the electric motor, without him we’d have far less electromechanical devices. I don’t think any of these scientists or billionaires are under rated or over rated, I think each receives their due, which the majority decides on, as a human whole, the general concensus decides who is a genius and who is not. Socrates, Confucius, these were genii in a different way, more by their sayings of wisdom. Darwin a genii of biology and nature. Darwin is a prime example of someone who cannot be measured by an IQ test, but yet is a genius. Milena Dravic genius, appeared in many films, e.g. where eagles dare, she was a kid in the war, who made her own way in life, dancing and acting. There should be as many women mentioned as men in this list who are geniuses. Ada Lovelace, another, she knew maths to the extreme, how to solve equations of many unknowns using difference methods, and solving differential equations by numerical methods, even today, mathematicians struggle with these concepts. She was only about 20 years old at the time in the early victorian days. She was the first computer programmer. Marie Curie, I don’t know if you mentioned her. as for the other names mentioned like Hannibal Lektor and other silly names brought in to the discussion, this is another story.

    • Rudepeople / Nov 9 2017 3:15 pm

      Stop posting for the love of God! You are one self-absorbed POS

    • Mal Laverack / Apr 24 2018 8:51 am

      I don’t agree with you Chris and please, learn how to spell ‘atheism’.

  39. Robert / Jun 15 2017 3:27 am

    Da Vinci was overrated. You’re an idiot. He thought and made plans for things long before they could be engineered. His studies in anatomy were instrumental in the study of kinesiology and medicine. It has to suck living life with an IQ as low as yours.

  40. Anonymous / Jun 12 2017 5:41 pm

    Lmao,the “author” needs shut up… what a complete idiot!

  41. Anonymous / Jun 10 2017 11:48 am

    haahaha author is a fucktard

  42. Andre Jack Roodt / Jun 8 2017 1:32 pm

    I have to plainly disagree with most of what has been stated. One cannot say any of these geniuses were overrated just because of failed experiments or projects. Many of these amazing scientists not only had difficult lives but also did not think the same way we do. Honestly one can take Sir Isaac Newton for example, a Law we now study in schools he discovered by sitting under an apple tree…

    Another thing I want to point out, if someone was calculated to have an extremely high IQ but has not contributed to science then it is irrelevant to put him on this list…. author…. Go and look what the definition of “Genius” is- exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability. Yes, that’s right, nowhere in that definition does it state that ‘to be a genius one must contribute to the science archives of humanity’, which hits other geniuses of this list out as well.

    So the next time one has the urge to, plainly put: “Thumbsuck” assumptions of these geniuses please make sure you have real facts and a high enough education yourself to do so.

  43. PCR / Jun 3 2017 9:28 am

    Other than the many other comments below, I think that the comments most damning to the author of this article is his critiques based on his observations that these individuals had ideas/inventions that did not work. Anyone who participates in scientific activity will have many ideas, theories, and experiments that do not work. Those famous individuals have more preserved documents for us to examine than their less famous contemporaries. Someone who actually thinks the great thought will often make more and greater mistakes.. Secondly, to say that someone’s contributions were less meaningful because they were easily rediscovered or proven at a later time are truly specious. In the fields of scientific and mathematical study we all stand on the shoulders of giants. Those that make great contributions often have to overcome the cultural and academic mores and fads of their time. As these fads die out, contemporary popular thought often makes a great stride forward seem obvious; however at the time it was generated it was not.

  44. Anonymous / May 28 2017 7:09 am

    Commenters are being too hard on the author of the article. His IQ is almost perfect. It’s 98.

    But all seriousness aside, the author is just trolling.

  45. Anonymous / May 26 2017 6:10 pm

    You said Divinities IQ was ONLY 160. Might I ask what yours is?

  46. John S / May 17 2017 8:20 pm

    You clearly don’t understand Einstein’s contribution to physics. Your critique of his work is nonsense.

  47. Sarah / May 11 2017 11:04 am

    I don’t really trust the opinions of someone who makes basic grammar mistakes like saying “could of” instead of “could have.” Just saying. If you’re going to judge someone, it inherently requires placing yourself above them. Placing yourself in a position of judging these geniuses requires you to be a greater geniuses; otherwise, you are simply regurgitating the opinions of other people who are claiming to be greater geniuses. As such, the egos of these people will always get in the way… however, in regards to some of them, you are certainly correct. in particular Bill Gates, who brazenly appropriated other people’s technology and ideas and was too rich to fight against.

  48. Jello / Apr 25 2017 9:42 pm

    THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! And I mean that sincerely for including that fuckwit pencil necked MORON Bill “shithead” Gates. The luckiest man whose ever lived. Nothing more than a dweebish greasebag who was blessedly fortunate to be in the right place at the right time. Fate dealt him his fortune, not his intellect. The worlds would honestly and truly be a better place if it weren’t for that technical tragedy know as Microsoft and the shit problem plagued garbage the world is now forced to use. There’s a special place in hell for that little rich twit.

  49. Andrew / Mar 26 2017 2:13 pm

    so mr. smarty pants writer…..what have u contributed to this world…..the people you so disrespectfully call overrated atleast did…..
    n what media are you blaming… can’t just call people overrated because of media attention……you talk about IQ when you yourself are in the double digits

    • Anonymous / Apr 6 2017 12:39 pm

      Just because they aren’t insanely famous doesn’t mean their IQ is below 100

  50. Anonymous / Mar 22 2017 3:57 am

    You mention Bill Gates, but what about Steve Jobs. People think he is not only a genius, he is a God! This is far more ridiculous then overestimating Da Vinci (I find your argumentation quite convincing).

  51. Im Sorry Wilson / Mar 5 2017 12:54 am

    LOL! Funny to hear IQ critiques from someone whose is clearly in the double digits.

  52. Anonymous / Mar 3 2017 2:39 pm

    I can see agree about them being overrated and that other geniuses should be brought to light and celebrated. Talking about how much smarter others were, though…eh, they’re all (or most of them) at the point where extra IQ points are just about bragging rights and usually disregarded as meaningless. Unless we’re planning on attaching their stats to Yugioh cards and fighting it out, it’s not really worth comparing them to each other in that field.
    I also disagree that your work being built on someone else’s discredits or diminishes its significance. Maybe that wasn’t your point in those sections, but it does come across that way.

  53. fuckwit wilson / Mar 2 2017 3:37 pm

    This is actual fake news.
    What a terrible pile of shit.

    • Anonymous / May 14 2017 7:23 am

      No one on this list is overrated in terms of intelligence! Whomever thinks anyone on this list is overrated they need to sharpen there criteria of intelligence!

  54. Anonymous / Feb 22 2017 11:35 pm

    Why do I get the idea that this twit voted Donald Trump … A true genius. Just ask him!

    • Anonymous / Feb 25 2017 11:22 pm

      The only twit is here is you. The media is notorious for being ill informed, this is knowledge that predates Trump you bumbling moron.

  55. Andrea L'Artiste / Feb 16 2017 9:04 pm

    It’s a good thing opinions are

  56. Helen / Feb 12 2017 7:42 pm

    I like the article but it seems you’ve crossed the line a little by calling da Vinci a genius idiot. Wrong interpretation is not a fault of an artist. And it is not his fault that people considered him as an inventor. All his work is just art and creative ideas, ant that is that. Is quite pointless to philosophize about it

  57. Nix / Feb 4 2017 12:53 pm

    I have no words to describe the level of fallacy and subjectivity in this article. If you wish someone to ‘believe’ this hodgepodge of inarticulate propaganda, provide evidence, otherwise you are just throwing out a argument based solely on faulty logic and emotional subjectivity. The only people who will believe this are those who cannot think for themselves or base their opinions on dogmatic emotional stupor. I need only reference multiple comments predating my own to prove my assertion’s validity. Further more, your argument lost what miniscule ground it had when you attacked ‘atheist’ over the claim that ‘Bill Gates created the computer ‘; a claim that no person of any note has ever made. The only truth I found in this article is based on the lack of validity in Edison’s prominence.
    Good try, though. This article made for a good laugh.

  58. Esly / Jan 24 2017 3:01 pm

    I like your style of writing and analogy,althouph a little bit sentimental but logical.I did a research on intelligence,and found out that,we have about seven levels of intelligence and about six or more types of intelligence.The levels are stated below,from the lowest to the highest. 1)Smart, (2) Intelligent, (3) Super smart, (4)Super intelligent, (5)Genius, (6)Super Genius and (7) Infinite intelligence. The highest attainable to humans is level five. However,someone might have the potential of being in a particular level,but that does not necessarily make him/her to be in that level. The only person that is in level seven is the creator(JEHOVAH). I consider many of the persons you mentioned to be in level 5 e.g Albert,William Sidis and others,maybe overrated as you pointed out.However,just like you,I do not rate Bill gates to be in level 5,he should be either in level 3 or 4. Too bad 4 me anyway,I rate myself to be in level 2,;-(;-(;-(. LOL.

  59. Esly Igho / Jan 23 2017 12:52 am

    I like your style of writing and analogy.Although a little bit sentimental but logical.I did a research on intelligence and found out that we have about seven levels of intelligence and about six or more types of intellingence.The levels are stated below,from the lowest to the highest. 1)Smart. 2)Intelligent. 3)Super smart. 4)Super intelligent. 5)Genius. 6)Super Genius and 7)Infinite intelligence. The highest level attainable to humans is level five.However, someone might have the potential of being in a particular level,but that does not neccessarily make him/her to be in that level.The only person that is in level seven,is the creator(JEHOVAH). I consider many of the persons you mentioned to be in level 5 e.g Albert Eisten,William sidis e.t.c maybe overated as you pointed out.However I do agree that Bill gates is not a genius.I rate him to be in level three(Supersmart). Too bad 4 me anyway,I rate myself 2 b in level 2,;-(;-(.LOL.

  60. Esly Igho / Jan 23 2017 12:02 am

    I like your style of writing and analogy.

  61. Hans Eberl / Jan 16 2017 9:55 am

    The #1 Problem with this blog post is, that it is based on one very wrong (and not very intelligent) assumption:

    That there exists something as “IQ”, like a natur given constant inheritent to every human, which determines if someone is a “Genius” or not. This is wrong.

    “IQ” is mereley the result someones gets on an “IQ-Test”. IQ Tests are a selection of cognitive Tests, which are economically applyable (eg. Before computers: pen & paper,..), and can function as a Tool to help give a Psychologist or Psychiatrist an Impression of a Client without the need to spend a lot of time.

    There are a lot of cognitive Tests one can make, and everyone has different Strengths and Weaknesses, it is more like a Mental Fitness Test.

    Creativity, Apptitude, Talents, and yes Intelligence is not measurable with a Test.

  62. subhayandeblog / Jan 11 2017 6:00 am

    Sorry but I am very happy to read your blog and getting bored too quickly..most of the information you give is totally wrong..but thanks for your effort for making such a wonderful entertainment ie. A jokes

  63. Anonymous / Jan 2 2017 8:41 pm

    In this article, you’re backing up your ideas with stereotypes of what people see of that particular person, but you’re not explaining why they’re not a genius, or why they’re considered overrated.

  64. Anonymous / Dec 30 2016 10:01 pm

    Stephen Hawking was the one who proved the big bang and found how our universe even came into existence. Saying he’s overrated is retarded. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about since you’re clearly not a physicist and you’re probably going on some online website to find these “facts.” Albert Einstein may not have discovered some new math “things,” but how many so-called mathematicians really did invent some math formulas. In order to make new math things you need to apply existing math since it’s impossible to make new math without it. e=mc^2 is an equation, therefore it’s math. I don’t know what your motive is for this article is, but it’s pointless. Almost every invention or object you see can almost always be traced back to a physicist.

    • Anonymous / Jan 2 2017 8:35 pm

      I completely agree. You can’t judge people by media influences. You have to look at the facts, and I honestly don’t know what your requirements are for being a genius, but I do know these people were geniuses.

  65. Samuel / Dec 28 2016 1:49 pm

    To make a couple assement of who is really a genius or not. One must include all of the earth’ s inhabitants free of human biases. Meaning:Economics,Cast,Race,Religion,Politics etc.

  66. Mark Stone / Dec 26 2016 6:04 pm

    I have an IQ over 160, so I am considered a genius. One person who cannot possibly be is the author of this article. Fairly obvious said author is writing out of petty envy. Papable derision.

    • cainen / Jan 10 2017 10:46 pm

      don’t let semantics cloud your perspective. many of those listed here are constantly in the “media eye”. while other’s that are named in this editorial (Tesla in particular), get much less media attention. Einstein is so publicized, it makes me want to vomit.

  67. Mike / Dec 26 2016 5:29 am

    Ok so ive read all of the comments until july 16 2016. It seems as though the vast majority of you have completely missed the idea of this article eventhough it may have been inadvertent. This guy or i would say kid, is obviously some what intelligent. Although he may be smart he is obviously not the smartest. And i dont think hes claiming to be. I also dont think that thus article is attempt to be profound. What he is showing about his character by discrediting the people on this list is that he is an abrasive asshole and given the fact that he hasnt responded to any of yall comments, he no doubt has completed his goal which was ultimately to start a completely pointlessly baseless debate that may not actually be his honest opinion but just a bored college student on summer break that has entirely to much time on his hands and gets absolutely no VAGINA , has totally gotten a RISE out of you all and frankly he probably finds it humorous as do I. Some of you guys have some pretty good comments tho, lolz. And also some of you have an incredible amount of knowledge, altho 90% unuseful, but nevertheless some smart people out there. Myself i work cunstruction and went to a community college for 3 years and have still not completed😢 ….so that should explain any grammatical error’s sorry bout that👌

    • tw@tface / Feb 4 2017 10:18 pm

      “Some what intelligent”…. my dog is somewhat intelligent.

      You should read his about page (the authors, not my dogs).

      This guy is little more than a modern day Joseph Smith.

  68. Anonymous / Dec 19 2016 10:43 pm

    The author of this is a stupid twit…

    I don’t know how intelligent people think YOU are but however much it must be an even greater OVERESTIMATE

  69. Gez 13 / Nov 29 2016 4:54 am

    Many thanks you are obviously an intelligent person – just saw a video with KAKU saying essentially that americans are dumb and that only indian and chinese pa
    phds and graduates are any good – he is what we call here in australia and the UK a wanker – apologies for the vulgarity. regards

    • Anonymous / Jan 2 2017 8:40 pm

      Yes, I completely agree. Michio Kaku is really dumb, because creating a particle accelerator in high school, getting the attention of an AMERICAN physicist, getting into Harvard, and backing up string theory is something the average kid does right?

    • tw@tface / Feb 4 2017 10:21 pm

      americans are dumb. in an attempt to get the government out of the pockets of large corporations they voted for someone who is a large corporation.

  70. Malchut / Nov 25 2016 11:34 pm

    So I suppose Pythagorean tuning system and universal geometrical language mean nothing to you… Kaku isn’t famous because he’s “the best”, he’s famous because he’s the only science-type with any remote concept of social skill, charm and an alluring presence. But other than that I agree with you totally. Hawking’s paranoid delusions pertaining to alien invasion and artificial intelligence is both comical and pathetic at the same time.

  71. Gospa od Doline (@CelineStClair) / Nov 25 2016 5:03 pm

    I can’t believe how much I agree with this list! hahah I think you are so right about Edison, Einstein and DaVinci who I cant stand. I really like Einstein and he sure was a genius but he was also a contemporary of Tesla who was probably the greatest genius of the 20th century and maybe even more.

  72. Anonymous / Nov 16 2016 11:59 am

    It is nice to see people trying to dismiss the little aura of near godhood attributed to these people. Because of the sycophantic nature of the media, they receive more credit than they deserve. Except maybe for Einstein and Leonardo who are less overrated than the others. I particularly despise Michio Kaku, not only because his credit came from being a TV Show scientist but also because he feel confident to open his moronic mouth on topics he knows nothing about like history and political science.

    • tw@tface / Feb 4 2017 10:23 pm

      yet Kaku is still significantly brighter than you. me, and anyone else who has ever posted on this blog.

  73. K Sean Proudler / Nov 15 2016 4:02 am

    What is today’s definition of a “Genius” ? If you’re born with a brain which is not too bright, then that brain will accept incoming information without questioning it. In other words, the mind becomes quite a gullible mind indeed. As a consequence, this brain will suck up knowledge just like a desert would suck up water, and thus do so at a rapid pace. All this would occur because it accepts incoming information, without questioning it.

    In turn, a person was such a mind will quickly rise to the top of the class in grade school, whip through high school and university, and pop out the other end with multiple Ph.D’s.

    So as a consequence of such a setting, you have a person who is extremely knowledgeable, but not necessarily extremely intelligent. However, such people become quite famous people. Those on the other hand who may be somewhat intelligent but not knowledgeable, each fade away into the background. I’m definitely not a knowledgeable person, and so the school system soon tossed me out. Any observation that I made which I thought was important and was to be studied, was simply laughed at by the teachers.

    However, I pursued these observations in my spare time early on during the beginning of my work years. The outcome of my analysis resulted in my own independent discovery of Special Relativity(SR), and my own independent method of deriving of the special relativity mathematical equations. Due to my independent thinking, the method in which I derived theSR equations, turned out to be quite unique, and has never been practiced by any other person.

    But still, I remain as being an absolute nobody. Even my KSP Special Relativity YouTube videos are just being laughed at.

  74. IQ 350 / Nov 14 2016 1:45 pm

    Excellent post, totally agree,the media has selected a number of individuals in the scientific world and presented them as tip top in their field. Einstine springs to mind, he nicked all of his ideas (when asked how he came up with his theories, he relied – oh, they
    Came to me in a dream. And he was purity nasty to his wife.

  75. Shitarticle / Nov 13 2016 7:47 am

    All you did was prove yourself to be a pseudo-intellectual contrarian. I can assure you no one thinks Pythagoras is the greatest mathematician of all time (most don’t even know who he is), but your attempt to discredit him is laughable. He is a huge contributer to early maths and his findings have been rehashed and reused in many areas of math including calculus and set theory, both of which allowed you to type out this shit article. It’s also ridiculous that you tried to list Newton as one of the greatest mathematicians ever, but forgot the real lord and savior polymath Leibniz. Google some more shit and write misinformed article, turd

  76. Curtis / Nov 9 2016 8:57 am

    Text +12402921871 or visit for the services of white hat hackers and you get proof of job done before paying a dime or just text +12402921871

  77. Martin / Nov 9 2016 8:25 am

    Why would you believe Leonardo da Vinci is overrated? I read your article and I still don’t agree with you.

    If anything, these so-called “modern day geniuses” are overrated. Maybe you should post a few celebrities who believe that having a 140 I.Q. is a genius (everyone can start laughing).

    • Anonymous / Dec 26 2016 4:48 am

      Actually 140 to 145 is the starting point for showing signs of genius it’s just a fact not even debatable…

      • Anonymous / Jan 5 2017 11:04 pm

        IQ is not a helpful measurement of intelligence. So it’s hardly a fact.

  78. Anonymous / Nov 8 2016 8:26 pm

    You have clearly been imbibing some kind of hallucinagenic fungal tea and ingesting mind altering narcotics, you need help. Please enroll in a good dry out program and get your life back. Good luck.

  79. ss / Nov 1 2016 6:48 pm

    I stopped to read after “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 is atheism doing with your list???
    Don’t even bother to reply, I’m out !

  80. Josefinà / Oct 24 2016 2:47 am

    Your beliefs are what you make of them. I admire your research as far a Leonardo Davinci goes – and would also not agree with his estimated IQ. But at the same time, I wouldn’t doubt Davinci’s intelligence either. Although many people on this planet are however otherwise stated: ‘incompetent’ in one area of intelligence or another, it does not directly reflect their overall intelligence or ability to use other parts of the brain simultaneously in order to unlock “unknown” information. Which ultimately is directly related with nothing other than imagination and creativeness – as dumb as it sounds. I wonder what your IQ is, and to even guess I would say confidently below 120. Though you write as if you think it is above the stated quotient. Your writing style is what ultimately gives it away. I wouldn’t say anything bad about it, but there is nothing good to say about it either. Thank you for staying anonymous – you wouldn’t want your lack of huevos and big-headed ego to get you into REAL trouble. Though I’m sure in your daily life you have enough of that with all your OPINIONS.

  81. Anonymous / Oct 18 2016 4:48 pm

    lol ur an absolute idiot retard for writing this parhtic clickbait shit of an article

    • Anonymous / Nov 12 2016 11:42 am


    • Radu / May 18 2017 10:20 pm

      because your idols/false human gods were smashed by critical thinking and independent research?
      you are wrong, very wrong

  82. Murray Braem / Oct 18 2016 7:46 am

    Agree completely with your list and analysis. I would however, add Tesla and Darwin to the list. Tesla, an inventor and showman, offered no profound contribution to science nor engineering. Darwin was more of a plugger and lab rat. In fact Wallace might have issued “Origin of the Species” first but for an unlucky life. Darwin’s ideas (and Wallace) were founded much of the prevailing thought of the day….no genius here, just hard work.

    • Anonymous / Nov 27 2016 3:04 am

      Youre not serious murray? you cant be? you came here to troll right tesla offered no profound contribution.. to science? alright murray or should i call you alcoholic braem?

    • cainen / Jan 10 2017 10:55 pm

      “Tesla offered no profound contribition to science” ?? really ? I don’t even know where to start.. You are completely wrong.

  83. likota / Oct 15 2016 4:35 pm

    I agree with you on Bill Gates. Total flop in every direction but with a business accumen who practically sold a software to two IBM mechanical engineers that had no idea what a software is all about.
    If some from the computer world had to be on the list, let’s then add Steve Jobs.

  84. Lucas / Oct 15 2016 5:04 am

    Sorry to say mate, but you are wrong about most of your assertions. Einstein wasn’t a mathematician, so what! He created general a special relativity. You need to actually be in the subject to talk about it.
    Maybe bill gates wasn’t an “Einstein”, but to get rich, in this world, you have to be pretty clever. To be #1 #2 richest person in the world you have to be a genius.

    • Radu / May 18 2017 10:28 pm

      if you are jewish or member of the right “secret” club or so it is guaranteed to appear like god in the eyes of sheeps – meaning most of you of course.

      Most billionaires do not got there because of their economic genius lets be fair and honest here.
      It takes very influential bankers in high places to get big loans to finance a business plan.
      Its not like its a walk in the park you know.

      Einstein is a fraud he mostly plagiarised and based his “discoveries” on other past true geniuses who today are not mentioned sadly enough.

      It doesnt matter who really made contributions to society and humankind if the media is owned by certain behind the scene figures with certain agendas to fulfill.

      their subjects are rewarded while true scientists some of whom opposed some of their plans are facing oblivion and damnatio memoriae.
      Who writes history controls the past and perhaps the future.

  85. eric schatz / Oct 5 2016 11:16 am

    Whoever came up with this list oddly is def not a genius. Einsteins not a genius? Give me a break. Talk to any Theoretical or Experimental Physicist. The man is a God.

    • Anonymous / Jan 5 2017 5:07 pm

      Every phycists agrees to Albert Einstein being one of the greatest physicist of all time with Isaac newton

  86. ananage / Oct 4 2016 2:33 pm

    i do agree, i scored on IQ as high as the scale allowed, I was a super fast learner, I understand maths nearly instinctively and I never had much regard for any person mentioned in the field of scientific genius. however there is some trace of creativity in some people that you have listed and that is a thing that has very little to do with IQ scores. As little as intelligence has with IQ.
    just consider recent warning of impeding doom coming form Steven Hawking. It is nearly century too late, people know for nearly 100 years that AI may kill human civilisation. That is significant trademark of all the people that you named they were good some of them very good in their respective fields but rarely creative or original. They ware a bunch of workhorses promoted to the uhlan brigade. that is it.

  87. Ethan / Oct 3 2016 11:17 am

    Wow you are an idiot. Ideas do not require IQ, it is the idea, a genious can make a terrible idea, and a complete idiot could make a great idea. *cough* bill gates *cough*

    • Egbert Williams / Nov 13 2016 12:44 pm

      Bill Gates may have benefited most from timing and shrewd business acumen, but he in fact is also very bright. Perfect SAT scores; only applied to Harvard, Princeton and Yale and was accepted by all three. One of a very select few to take and pass Harvard’s dreaded Math 55, often touted as the most difficult undergraduate course in the country. Undertaking a famously difficult math problem, he “improved the previous best of pancake flipping solution of 2n by 17% by himself as an undergrad only using a pencil and paper. That record would stand for 30 years (2009) until a team of 7 computer scientists managed to further improve Gates’ result by 1% using supercomputers.” Many people who knew him at the time remarked that he was the smartest person they’d ever met.

      And you think he’s an “cough” idiot “cough.” The derp factor is quite high in that assessment.

  88. pt / Sep 29 2016 8:00 pm

    the spelling is a giveaway . . .

  89. asde kadr / Sep 20 2016 2:42 pm

    someone did not pass the MENSA test so he make a poor article about 10 geniuses

    • Ethan / Oct 3 2016 11:19 am

      This is probably someone who took an IQ test then found out they were average.

      • !mrdunn brucvald / Nov 1 2016 6:29 pm

        Exactly. Those who drive current feminism, ‘Social Justice’, and victim cultures
        must explain away or re-imagine those who out do them…or face less-than-flattering empirical realities…..

  90. Anonymous / Sep 17 2016 9:09 am

    This article is a joke.The content laughable but, couldn’t keep me amused.However you make your own top 10 for mediocrity in news.

  91. Elijah Bailey / Sep 15 2016 2:55 pm

    You obviously have never actually read of these people’s contributions, their work, or anything in depth and are making your opinions based solely off of media opinion and your own misinformed opinions. I don’t know whether you’re trolling or just that ignorant, but James Sidis graduated college in his teens, taught a college course at age 20, was a brilliant mathematician, and you completely underestimate the value of a perpetual calendar, he also made other contributions, but I can’t seem to recall them at the moment. And Einstein was a math prodigy and NASA actually proved his theory of relativity. While you’re correct that Bill Gates did not invent the computer, he did revolutionize the technology it was based off of, and built a tech empire from scratch, and unlike Steve Jobs, he didn’t rip anybody’s work off. Stephen Hawking is an astrophysics and mathematics prodigy, and the singularity theory is one of the leading theories out there. Leonardo DaVinci was well ahead of his time, developing formulas for technology that preceded his own time period, that we still base some of our own technology off of today, and some of his inventions are still regarded as marvels of the human mind, he was also able to mathematically map out coordinates of an image and paint it just by looking at it, or make them up from scratch, and possessed exceptional spacial reasoning ability. The only person on this list who is overrated is Thomas Edison, because the majority of his findings were ripped straight from the work and data of other scientists around his time.

    And just because someone doesn’t make significant contributions or isn’t the leading person in their field does not make them overrated or negate their intellect. And often times the data given is what modern physicists and mathematicians build upon and connect pieces. I suppose next you’re going to tell me that Charles Darwin, Markov Pavlov, Galileio Galilei Nietzsche, Socrates, Sun Tzu, and Confucius are all overrated as well? Please, actually do your research before you make misinformed opinions. “Better to let people think you’re an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

  92. Anonymous / Sep 14 2016 1:18 am

    You overrate your own intelligence, and knowledge. You clearly have never done research on any of these people’s work, and if you did, you’re surely to stupid to know how incredible all of their work is. You probably don’t even have a job, judging by the fact that you had time to write all of this shit. Get a life, or even better yet, got make a discovery, “genius”.

  93. Daniel Burm / Aug 26 2016 9:14 pm

    Einstein is not overrated. And has made numerous contributions whether he has had help or not.
    Furthering ideas or getting inspiration from someone elses work does not make you overrated that is the most idiotic ideology.

  94. Anonymous / Aug 20 2016 7:54 pm

    Talk about idiots

  95. Pedro Mariano / Aug 18 2016 11:29 am

    It’s been said a million times already, but you’re a fucktard.

    • Anonymous / Sep 18 2016 3:34 am

      Totally agreed! 😉

  96. josh / Aug 16 2016 9:45 am

    It was very difficult to read all of you bullshit, it was physically painfull when I read “Whenever asked for legitimate reasons as to how Da Vinci could of had an IQ of 200+”
    “COULD OF” ?? really ?? you’re blaming geniuses and you can’t even write properly…
    stfu you arrogant asshole.

  97. Ahmet Birsen / Aug 15 2016 6:38 am

    60% of the basic science, Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics originates in Germany.
    Konrad Zuse made the first programmable computer in the World in 1941, luckily the Nazis didn’t support it, also the Radar, Magnetron and jet engine all German inventions A-BOMB was built by German immigrant scientists on both sides of the Atlantic.. ..Its all documented

  98. papa / Aug 13 2016 2:09 pm

    I didn’t look to see who wrote this article but I would have to comment and say this person is an asshole .
    I just pick one of the people on the list.
    Ben Franklin.: Ben Franklin coined the terminology to describe electricity as positive and negative Charges .he was the world’s preeminent scientist in regards to electricity of his era.Ben Franklin was the first person to recognize that lighting hit the highest object; which lead to the invention of the lightning rod.

  99. Feynman-Schwinger / Aug 9 2016 4:09 am

    This is the worst article I’ve ever read. My brain cells dead as I read this asinine drivel.

    Einstein #3? Lol.

    Special Relativity ALONE would’ve made him a legend. General Relativity ALONE would’ve been him immortal. So I won’t even mention those two titanic works of genius, I’ll talk about stuff pseudo-intellectual retards like the author of this article don’t know about:

    Summary of Einstein and Quantum Mechanics:
    Not only did Einstein understand quantum mechanics, Douglas Stone. T.S. Kuhn, John Stachel and others, have convincingly argued that Einstein should be called the Father of Quantum Mechanics. He understood early quantum theory better than anybody of that era.

    *Albert Einstein was the first to prove the existence of atoms in his seminal paper on the ~100 year problem of Brownian motion (this, incidentally, also proved the existence of molecules and is one of the 10 most cited papers of the 20th century).

    *Albert Einstein was one of the first scientists to invent a new way to calculate Avogrado’s Number (incidentally his dissertation).

    *He is probably the most influential figure in the history of Quantum Mechanics thanks to his 1905 paper on the quantization of the radiation field, incorrectly referred to as the “Photoelectric Effect Paper” (it does much more than simply explain the photoelectric effect). This seminal work revolutionized physics by postulating that light was a particle and that the energy exchanges in the radiation field come in discrete chunks of indivisible particles. In essence, he proposed that the field itself was quantized (very revolutionary indeed). He, more than Max Planck, introduced the concept of the quantization of energy in atomic mechanics.

    *Einstein, in his paper on the Specific Heat of Solids (1906), was the first physicist – using his own work on the quantization of the radiation field – to accurately explain the conditions for thermal equilibrium between matter and radiation.

    *Einstein proposed the photon, the first force-carrying particle discovered for a fundamental interaction, and put forward the notion of wave-particle duality, based on sound statistical arguments 14 years before De Broglie’s work.

    *Einstein, in his paper on Spontaneous and Stimulated Emission, was the first to recognize the intrinsic randomness in atomic processes, and introduced the notion of transition probabilities, embodied in the A and B coefficients for atomic emission and absorption. Einstein was also the first to introduce a notion central to quantum mechanics known as complimentarity. In this paper we see Einstein invent a completely original (and elegant) derivation of Planck’s radiation law as well a completley original (and elegant) derivation of Bohr’s frequency rule. His trilogy of papers between 1916 and 1917 form the foundation of the LASER and is a work of prescient genius. Read Daniel Kleppner’s (MIT) paper on the work:

    *Einstein also preceded Max Born in suggesting the interpretation of wave fields as probability densities for particles, photons, in the case of the electromagnetic field. Born would later win a Nobel Prize in 1954 by taking Einstein’s idea and simply applying it to electrons – and was gracious enough to given Einstein the credit for the idea.

    *Einstein, stimulated by Bose, was the very first to introduce the notion of indistinguishable particles in the quantum sense and derived the condensed phase of bosons, which is one of the fundamental states of matter at low temperatures. For this Manuel Cardona and others have called Einstein “the father of condensed matter physics”:

    *His work on quantum statistics in turn directly stimulated Schrodinger towards his discovery of the wave equation of quantum mechanics. Schrodinger always acknowledged this (see: Abraham Pais “Subtle is the Lord,” 1982).

    *Einstein was the first scientist to predict Quantum Entanglement in his controversial EPR Paradox paper that was later validated by John Bell (i.e. Bell’s Theorem). Einstein theorized of entanglement as a disproof, but nonetheless he was the first scientist to see where others could not see. His ideas of hidden variables and non-locality are still being debated today, 80 years after the fact.
    It was only due to his rejection of the final theory due to philosophical incongruities that he is not generally recognized as the most central figure in this historic achievement of human civilization.
    Was he wrong about Quantum mechanics? He said it was a powerful theory that predicted a lot but explained little. He described it “incomplete.” Most physicists today would probably agree that it is indeed “incomplete” seeing as it doesn’t explain why the Standard Model possesses the specific properties it does. Lastly, Einstein was very bothered by the implication that the observer “collapses” the wave function, thereby implying that QM had a subjective component to it. So, no, Einstein was not wrong about quantum mechanics – were he alive today he would probably be working on quantum problems.


    Professor Douglas Stone (Head of Applied Physics at Yale University): “Einstein and the Quantum: The Quest for the Valiant Swabian” (2014)
    Abraham Pais (Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton): “Subtle is the Lord” (1982)
    Daniel Kleppner (Professor of Physics at MIT): “Rereading Einstein on Radiation” (2005)

    • Scott / Aug 9 2016 4:15 am

      Every post you have woefully historically inaccurate.

      1 Da Vinci was a polymath you fucktard, not strictly speaking, an engineer.

      2. Einstein didn’t get his ideas from Faraday, if you’re gonna give anybody credit give it to Maxwell, but even that doesn’t really make sense because Einstein essentially created a new branch of physics by consolidating classical mechanics (clearly you have never studied physics and just blabber on about “overrated!” like a stupid drone).

      Also do you know who Riemann got his non-euclidean geometry from? Gauss, you fucking idiot. And moreover, einstein’s GR operates on tensor calculus created by Tuli-Levi Civita not Riemann (and Tulli-Levi Civita thought Einstein was a genius, so I guess he disagree with you).

      3. Literally this entire post is the dumbest thing i’ve ever read. Full of historical inaccuracies, no citations, and just backwards rubbish. Please read a book and stop blathering about rubbish.

      P.S. if you’re going to give guys “credit” for inventions, how about bringing up Ada Lovelace, Dennis Ritche, and Ken Thompson apropos the computer (the latter two for developing the UNIX OS we all use). You sir – I presume you’re a dude – are an idiot. Never coming to this blog again.

      • John C. / Aug 11 2016 12:01 pm

        Ada Lovelace? Bitch please. gtfo with that SJW bullshit. Ada Lovelace is a nobody.

      • Anonymous / Sep 6 2016 4:32 pm

        loved it

  100. malcmaccal / Aug 8 2016 5:04 pm

    “Firstly, the data Watson and Crick used was collected by Rosalind Franklin who is basically ignored.”

    Yes it was collected by her – and a lot of her data she received from her colleague, Maurice Wilkins, who she basically bullied. She was incapable of correctly interpreting her data – but Crick had the requisite level of skill in maths to do so.

    She is not basically ignored she is one of the most famous names in the history of science and UNDESERVEDLY SO. Yes, she was a very capable scientist and yes her work was a major part of the progress which unraveled the structure of DNA but the only reason her name is known to the extent it is is because of her gender.

    “Secondly, proposing a double helix structure for DNA given x-ray data requires little ingenuity or intelligence.”

    Then why on Earth didn’t she manage to do it? Having seen her own data, and the famous image based upon it, not only did she fail to propose the double helix but became even more adamant that DNA did not have a helical structure. You do realise that she was VEHEMENTLY against the proposed Helix structure of DNA? She even mocked her colleague (Wilkins) by posting about the supposed ‘death’ of this theory (which he supported) in the period immediately before Watson and Crick deduced it.

    “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.”

    And yet they were clever enough to correctly interpret Franklin’s data – which is more than can be said for her.

    She was a very capable scientist but one of the countless many who came close to making a major discovery but were just beaten to the punch. Of course most who experience that are forgotten (if they were ever briefly known) but she has a vagina so we have to keep hearing mendacious reimaginings of history to make some tortured, cheated, feminist genius out of her who was only kept down by the evil patriarchy.

  101. John P / Jul 31 2016 6:54 am

    I can’t help but feel Galileo is a little overrated.The Oxford calculators developed the mean speed theorem centuries before him

    Others, such as Thomas Hariot were looking through telescopes at the moon and stars. William Gilber was a pioneer if the scientific method before him

  102. John P / Jul 31 2016 6:46 am

    This is a good list.

    Some underrated scientific geniuses

    Henry Cavendish
    Paul Dirac
    Robert Hooke

  103. John P / Jul 31 2016 4:25 am

    William Kingdon Clifford anticipated Einstein by many years

  104. Andreas Danzer / Jul 30 2016 8:09 pm

    what a stupid and shallow article … all of these guys made history … the IQ of these guys is of higher number than the words you used to explain your thoughts about them … it is just worth nothing what u did here.

    of course there are scientists and even non-scientists out there that are underrated and for sure smarter and more intelligent and maybe they also contributed more to society than the guys you mentioned in your article … but nevertheless … your article is not profound and to be honest and straight forward … your article is scum.

  105. Hannibalz Killaz / Jul 28 2016 10:14 pm

    Where does Hannibal Lektor rank in this? I saw a movie about him and he is a true genius of his time because medicine and sergery is the hard life.. If Bill Gate was as smart as him he would own apple instead of just googel.

  106. Dante Hamm / Jul 28 2016 4:27 am

    The simple fact of the matter is that all of these gentlemen have genius level IQ’s (besides Watson). Though you personally might consider these men to be overrated, by technical definition they are indeed “geniuses.” Im sorry but your argument is just your personal opinion and not actual fact. Genius IQ is generally considered to begin around 140 to 145 by the scholarly community, which all of these men surpass (besides Watson). Im also curious who you would actually consider to be a genius?

    • Daniel Burm / Aug 26 2016 9:21 pm

      I thought it was 160+ for genius IQ 😦 this means my brother is a genius and i gotta listen to him brag about it dang… Now i have to work on something else to throw in his face.
      we joke around a lot.

  107. Patte de Chat (@Patte2Chat) / Jul 25 2016 9:11 pm

    This post is stupid and bad written.
    Obviously, the author has a low IQ and has a complex about it, so he attacks the reputation of so-called geniuses to comfort himself. It’s clear that this person doesn’t understand the concepts of intelligence and IQ. It seems that even the simple idea of an achievement in science is to complicated for his weak mind to understand
    Of course, some people are really overrated, but claiming that someone is overrated just because he or she is mediatic is completely stupid.
    Some elements of this post don’t even make sense. For example, what have the atheists to do with the way people consider Bill Gates ? Nothing. Someone here needs to check the actual definition of the word “atheist”. And it’s not me.
    Author of this bullshit, you should take lessons to learn how to write a text. You need to know that writing the same sentence again and again is a bad idea. Maybe you believe that saying something a lot makes it right. It doesn’t. You also need to know that you have to prove your point. Your opinion isn’t a matter of fact.
    Stop publishing things on your blog, you are making fun of yourself.

    My comment is rude and full of personal attacks, I know it. But you deserve it, author of this post, for being so foolish. You could say that I am mean with you because you disagree with the ideas defended by the media. I think you’ll enjoy it.
    Maybe you just want to provoke people with your bullshit, and in this case, well done. Now you look like a dumb-ass even if you’re not really one.

  108. Anonymous / Jul 23 2016 2:53 am

    This article is bullshit!

  109. Srikesh / Jul 13 2016 5:03 am

    How can you put Bill Gates and not Steve Jobs

  110. fred / Jul 11 2016 9:54 pm

    Micho Kaku never claimed to be a genius. I don’t think anyone considers him a genius. However he explains the most complex theories in Physics so that anyone who tries can understand them. I think he is doing a fantasic job. Genius? Who cares. Why are you looking down on him?

    Edison worked his butt off. He developed a light bulb that worked and a system that allowed it to be practical. Tesla probably trumped this quickly with fluorecent ligtht and AC generators, but Edison was an intermediate step. AND he invented the phonograph and motion pictures. I don’t know about you but I am impressed with that. Genuis? who cares. We owe him a lot.

    Tesla is seriously unknown and underated. Most people know that now, but that does no diminishe the work of others.

    Einstein did not think of everthing in the Theory of Relativity. However he was the first to put it all together and make it that theory. I don’t care what you say- he was a genius.

    I could go on but this overrated genius list is basically a pile of crap.

  111. Anonymous / Jul 10 2016 10:06 am

    Brainwashed generation.You all know the names,because they’re made famous,you don’t know the facts.Thats why you are insulting the blogger.Give him some credit ! instead of insulting him try to learn the real truth once.
    Einstein stole others ideas when he was working at the office for patents,so he had plenty to steal on his lap..Leonardo is a good painter,like many Italian artists those days(my favourite is Botichelli) but again Vitrivius is his master for the most of Leo’s ideas(which we don’t hear the name much)who was also translating the books of Andalucian Muslim scientists.Its all about racism that is effective in writing history.Thats why they had to create their own geniuses.Did you ever wonder how Europe changed from DARK Ages to technology hub.Read the history a bit.But not from the same bullshit sources,from several different sources that you can compare ,if you are really after the truth.

    • Yes / Jul 20 2016 4:40 pm

      So if you dont doubt you’re brainwashed. Is that really what you’re saying? Wow very good. I bet its wise to blindly say. Einstein stole his ideias from the papers he was pattenting???? Really? And how about his general theory of relativity? You know, the one he actually came up with YEARS later? Or maybe any other one of his 300 papers. Leonardo was not just a GOOD painter, he revolutionized art with his studies on perspective and techniques. And that is EXCLUDING all his other accomplishments that turned out to be only discovered years later. I dont know who’s worst, you or the other of this ill-informed article. Get some facts strait and stop imagining that swimming against the current makes you anymore intellectual than others.

    • Dan / Oct 26 2016 9:38 pm

      well said……

      there are almost no original ideas…..thoughts leaf to ideas and organized ideas lead to invention. In this process originality is VERY rare

  112. Tony chord / Jul 9 2016 12:09 pm

    You my friend have not considered one essential. element. the templates of Euclidean geometry gave the tools of logic. that is the flaw in your intellectual. analysis. A true genius go’s into the world of phenomena. where their is no logic. only pure form of creative. becoming

  113. Anonymous / Jul 3 2016 11:10 am

    you cant say anything because you`re not a ranking physicist

  114. Average User / Jun 27 2016 6:13 pm

    Well written and nicely argued. I had fun reading the comments. Watching people respond with great emotion, as if what this article here is, is something other than ONE MAN’S THESIS, one man’s opinion. People feeling PERSONALLY ATTACKED by opinions different than their own. It’s truly funny. Anyway, either you get what I’m saying or you don’t; but the chasm between the two perspectives seems wide and dark, and getting wider everyday. Remember friends… this article isn’t about you. People having different opinions than yours doesn’t negate the validity of your opinion. You are not in preschool anymore, like butt-hurt kids arguing transformers vs Voltron. No one cares, grow some perspective. Blah, I’m bored now

    • Rastislav Palugyay / Aug 10 2016 7:50 am

      The only problem with your free of opinion triade is, that these comments were not inspired by the same complexes you may hold, but by the insultingly low information value of this article. Which of course goes straight against the purpose of any blog article.
      If you see blogs just as some personal diaries to share ones hurts, then you are making the inventors of the blog really upset.

  115. real / Jun 21 2016 5:22 am

    You are the by far a person that need education, in terms of “facts” you need a visual, undeniable, measurable piece of information that can correlate with common denominator that will ensure to the audience and others the reality in your words, what you have is OPINION, based on feelings not on facts, Einstein, Edison, Tesla, etc. Great people very very smart.
    It’s rather normal, for people with basic education and small concepts to ignore or bypass greatness in pure sight just for the simple fact that they don’t understand. Similar to a very civilization in the past when the conquistadores came in they were clueless about the weapons and other stuff they had, for sure they looked like any other piece of weapon ignoring the fact they were way advanced for them.
    Bill gates is actually a good programmer look on quora there is some people that worked in microsoft and can attest to that don’t know the amount of skill on is craft but he must be average at least.
    On the other side you have Pitagoras, and Da vinci ahahahaha you are trying to reduce people that had less then 10% of your resources and did what they did. Mannn loool that is ridiculous is like me saying that i know aloooooottttt more then anyone in the medival time at 10 years old. The comparison is just outside of this world you need salvation the dumbness is strong inside you.

    • Average User / Jun 27 2016 6:16 pm

      Wow, talk about not using emotions and personal attacks as arguments!? Conflicted much?

      • Yes / Jul 20 2016 4:42 pm

        Doesnt matter. The author is wrong so people are just pointing that out. Very simple.

  116. Anonymous / Jun 15 2016 10:32 am

    I wouldn’t say that those guys on the list are dumb. Well, they are overrated for sure.
    Some people just watch tv and read papers and think ‘Yeah right, that guy is smart’, while he probably just says the things his scientists discovered.
    And I don’t think genius can be measured in IQ. Maybe there is some kind of African kid who gets no chances in the society of today, while still having good capabilities.

    • Average User / Jun 27 2016 6:22 pm

      Exactly. No one said they were dumb. The idea that the media (science also uses mediums of communication) would somehow create “celebrities” and dumb down the message seems absolutely CRAZY IMPOSSIBLE (see what I did there, simple words) for a lot of people. Surely all our teachers are infallible and all we see on TV is the truth!?!

  117. Lou / Jun 7 2016 7:24 pm

    Einstein’s ideas weren’t original?? If you ever read a science paper, it has references all over the place. His 1905 paper on “ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES” (Special Relatively) had none. That’s because nothing came before his paper. Any of his three papers could have gotten a Nobel price in that single year. The committee chose Brownian Motion. I don’t think you know enough to give this site credibility.

    • SocratesKnee / Jun 19 2016 10:25 pm

      There’s a possibility that he decided to not cite his sources. He may have plagiarized or stole someone else’s concept. That’s not unheard of. I’m not saying he wasn’t unoriginal but I am saying there is a possibility.

      • Anonymous / Jul 28 2016 10:02 pm

        You aren’t saying there’s a possibility. I’d like to see some of your own sources for this entire article. You got a huge amount of things wrong. Pythagoras specifically, he was an incredibly smart man, but also a crazy one.

  118. Anonymous / Jun 2 2016 6:55 am

    I agree with your reasoning and the order of which you have placed them. I have said as much for da Vinci, Hawking, Kaku, Gates and Einstein. Einstein was a lousy mathematician who screwed up his thesis upon submission and had to resubmit…embarrassing. I would give honorable mention to Darwin; he was simply a labrat introvert born into wealth and Wallace, relatively uneducated and unpretentious, probably would have issued (Origin…) first had he lived.

    Newton (irrefutable), Maxwell, Faraday would headline my list.Newton: the greatest physicist and mathematician, genious inventor and Master of the Mint. His “Newton Project” which was a study of the integrity of the Bible and of which he taught himself greek in order to read original versions is over 6 million words of analysis. The Bible is only 3/4 million words.

    • Optic scumpii / Jun 9 2016 9:17 pm

      Are u kidding me!! Darwin and Wallace were just observers and Michael faraday was an observer as well, u talk about Einstein resubmitting his thesis well Michael faraday dropped out of grade school and knew barely any math all his contributions were through diagrams.u clearly know nothing, Einstein created a whole mother fucking half of physics(general relativity, other half is quantum mechanics) in less than 15 years, his ideas were completely original, don’t talk bout shit u don’t know about, he solved the problem Newton couldn’t

      • John P / Jul 31 2016 5:01 am


        William Kingdon Clifford anticipated Einstein by many years

        Michael Faraday was probably the greatest experimentalist who ever lived.

        And If Wallace and Darwin were just observers why didn’t anybody make the observations before them?

      • Jonathan / Aug 28 2016 5:56 pm

        @John P

        So what if William Kingdon anticipated Einstein, he never put the work in to advance it the way Einstein did. And as many scientists have noted, those were hunches which didn’t have the mathematics to back it up.

        Faraday is just an overrated school drop-out. Get over it.

        As for Darwin and Wallace, the same reason William didn’t invent general relativity.

    • Ahmet Birsen / Aug 15 2016 6:31 am

      Farraday ??? are you kidding?? oh sure you must be a Brit !! Leibniz was a far greater genius ..Not to mention Gauss, Euler and Laplace there wouldn’t be a mathematics without them and consequently ,no science . .. Einstein O.K one of the greatest ..

    • Ahmet Birsen / Aug 15 2016 6:50 am

      Newton the greatest mathematician?? is this kind of a bloody joke?? Gauss, Laplace and Euler? what are we going to put these?

  119. Anonymous / May 31 2016 9:18 am

    The post is great. Too many people are brainwashed by textbook and the media.

  120. Troy Wahlbrink / May 29 2016 7:59 pm

    You’re probably right if you use the word ‘literally’ in reference to their genius. As far as contributions made to the world you are dead wrong on a bunch of these guys. Book smart vs street smart bro: book smart people cannot create, re-organize or develop new items or ideas. Being street smart can’t be measured adn that’s what most of these guys had. They were able to use what was around them to create new things and although in hindsight it doesn’t seem like an accomplishment, in reality it was pure ‘genius’ that they used all their faculties to make it happen.
    Btw, completely agree that Gates needs to be on this list. His entire backstory is the biggest piece of b.s. I’ve ever hear in my life. The guy’s overrated in many different areas.

  121. Gareth Thomas / May 25 2016 9:13 am

    A rather turdish post

  122. tweet anup / May 22 2016 10:52 pm

    I think the easiest think in the world is to sit on a toilet seat and find faults with people who contributed to the advancement and embellishment of mankind.

  123. Anonymous / May 20 2016 2:01 pm

    I am pretty sure that this person is wannabe who tries to tarnish the greatness of these men. I mean its okay till that Kaku person (I don’t even know who he is) but Albert Einstein and Da Vinci!?
    Read some books bud. Or try not posting shit..

  124. anon / May 18 2016 5:03 pm

    Actually, its not entirely wrong, though the collateral insults to the historical figures seem unfair and the references to some of the great thinkers seem to come from an overly narrow sampling.

    Regarding Einstein, consider that he deduced the existence of stimulated emission and its properties in 1917 from thermodynamics. That seems pretty clever. The comments about relativity are not entirely accurate and are far from painting a balanced picture as regards relativity and as regards Einstein.

    On the general topic, any number over about 150-160 is problematic because of sample size. Further, intelligence comes in a number of competencies and capabilities. The combined result of these two facts is that you cannot rate people who test in the upper fraction of a percentile in this way, much less any of the great thinkers. They are all very smart.

  125. Thom Yorke / May 11 2016 12:49 pm

    this is the most bullshit list ever made :/

  126. Connacht / May 10 2016 8:48 pm

    Oh sono due anni e mezzo che la gente continua a commentare indignata qui sopra, lol.

    • Connacht / May 10 2016 8:50 pm

      Mi correggo: cinque anni e mezzo.

  127. Anonymous / May 8 2016 1:11 am

    What the fuck? That has got to be the dummest list in the 21st century.

  128. West / May 5 2016 3:20 pm

    I’ve never heard such bullshit in my lift. I wonder if whoever wrote this crap really believes it or are they just trying to get a rise out of people. If they do believe it, they have to be the dumbest person to have ever lived..

  129. Ben Becker / May 3 2016 12:31 pm

    Most of these people aren’t overrated (except Pythagoras, some of his ideas were dumb), but I will agree with him on the fact that there are a lot more people that deserve just as much recognition.

  130. Anonymous / Apr 29 2016 3:24 pm

    This page is utter rubbish, the author should have done some research before writing this amateur paper. Furthermore I’m convinced that he/she could not have made any of these contributions

  131. Anonymous / Apr 28 2016 8:59 am

    get the f.u.c.k out of here

  132. Anonymous / Apr 26 2016 3:39 pm

    Oh. You forgot to mention that half of Leonardo’s inventions didn’t work.

  133. dave / Apr 26 2016 3:39 pm

    We all have are own perception! It is solidly understood that reasoning comes first. Meaning, the foul fingers, might take a step back and realign themselves and apply some progression to the topic. How many of you knew that Einstein can be connected to the bombing of Black Navy men and a direct connection to Rockefeller. Hay Facts are facts!

  134. dave / Apr 26 2016 3:09 pm

    interesting all one’s mentioned can be connected to curuption and the powers that be! and the one’s that did the work were restrained!

  135. Anonymous / Apr 26 2016 3:52 am

    This article is complete bullshit.

  136. Anonymous / Apr 20 2016 2:40 pm

    this is the biggest bullshit I’ve ever heard, however wrote this has an iq of about minus 5

    • Zack / Apr 29 2016 3:29 pm


  137. Anonymous / Apr 17 2016 7:12 pm

    What an ass.

  138. Foghorn The IKonoclast / Apr 16 2016 10:30 pm

    One of the overrated blogs of all time.

  139. Anonymous / Apr 16 2016 8:29 pm

    The fact that Leonardo,Stephen Hawking, Pythagoras, and Einstien are on this list makes me know that this is not true. You obviously think that you are superior and smart but reading this makes me know that you are not. I bet a million bucks that you belong to Mensa, an absolute indicator of your inflated ego. YOU are the one who is overated, and obviously a legend in your own mind.

  140. queen-of-sass / Apr 5 2016 11:57 pm

    This is utter bull. Based on the shit-storm that is this comment section, I would assume that a lot of people agree that this post is utter nonsense.

  141. Anonymous! -.- / Apr 3 2016 12:06 pm

    One of the most idiotic articles I’ve ever read, and if not, *the* most idiotic one. Poorly written and wrong in so many levels.

  142. Pieziiz Threeothreeofive / Mar 28 2016 8:25 pm

    Well. Overall Bill Gates deserves the 1st slot since the history is explicit enough to prove that his works don’t fit the titular “genius”. But in actuality he’s a clever entrepreneur rather than a genius.

  143. QuanTo / Mar 26 2016 3:57 pm

    Oh! And you completely ignored Sir Newton’s politics. When Leibnitz came out saying he has invented calculus, and suddenly Newton decides to announce that he invented calculus years ago! Really? From what I read about his personality and nature, he wasn’t a kind of genius who would keep his so profound work a secret ! Sir Isaac Newton was of course a genius but is surely really overrated. He kept only those works of his a secret that he couldn’t prove – like Alchemy and Bible Decoding!

    • Anonymous / Jun 2 2016 7:21 am

      Leibnitz didn’t invent calculus. He claimed to invent the Law of Fluxions” long after Newton invented the Law of Inverse Fluxions (differential calculus) which incidently, was done to more conveniently solve a physics problem. He happened to be on leave from school due to an outbreak of some sickness on campus; he was 19. Newton followed soon with the Integral Calculus of which Leibneiz takes a bow for. Leibniz did not invent the differential calculus and there is no evidence that he beat Newton with the other calculus as is supported by Christian Huygens.

      The history of science is full of coincidence.But Newton was no copy cat. And Leibniz, though a great scientist, had neither the depth nor was he as prolific in his entire body of work as was Newton. Voltaire had said “…if all the geniouses of the world were grouped together he (Newton) would surely lead the band.” That holds true even today.

    • John P / Jul 31 2016 5:08 am

      No, Newton wa she greatest scientific genius who ever lived

      • Ahmet Birsen / Aug 17 2016 7:30 am

        No he was not..Leonard Euler was miles ahead.. He was blind when he rewrote the mathematics !!! I don’t know from which country you come from but for the British, the all mighty god was born in Britain.. No offence please, but the Brits are the most narcissistic nation on the planet.. 50% of all British inventions as claimed by British sources are simply not real ..

  144. bob malone / Mar 25 2016 10:56 pm

    i am the smartest person ever to live.i can prove it.well i think i can.well im not sure now.well i forgot what i was hell with it.

  145. Anonymous / Mar 23 2016 3:04 am

    Poorly written boring to read article. Starting with everybody believes x is genius, but no y think he is. Ok ok they are just normal people, we can simply delete from wikipedia and pretend never existed. Definition of genius is not contributions to society. A genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability. If someone is talking so sure about various branch of science, I would not take him serious.

  146. Lists Suck / Mar 12 2016 9:07 pm

    This is a really bad list and it misses so many points. First of all by what criteria is one over or under rated? Not defined. Just some arbitrary sliding scale or is the creator of this list a world renowned physicist? There are physicists who do research, there are physicists who publish, there are physicists who work in industry, there are physicists who teach and there are physicists who communicate. In terms of success Hawking and Kaku are great examples of science communicators who are arguably just as important as the appropriately rated or under rated physicists (again according to the arbitrary scale by which this list is set). Beyond that there are some really over generalized bits about just about everyone on this list.

  147. Truth-As-I-know / Mar 4 2016 4:10 pm

    Most overrated are einsteins and hawkins. others should be removed from this list

  148. Finn / Mar 3 2016 6:05 pm

    This made me sick to my damn stomach. Every single person you said is definitely by all means a genius. You’re just too stupid to realize that. Idiot.

  149. Qubit / Feb 25 2016 11:12 am

    I know this is a bit old, but you did ask for a reasoned refutation, so here goes.

    You state this on Einstein: “..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”

    So what? Einstein made a number of great contributions to science. But in your opinion these don’t count as he didn’t invent the mathematics to go with them! What a myopic opinion. Lets list Einsteins contributions to science.

    There was a problem with Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism. The results of calculations seemed to depend on what reference frame you used to calculate them. But this suggested that certain frame where special, and idea that just isn’t there in the physics of classical mechanics. The idea was to introduce a special frame called the ether. But as we know, experiments to detect the ether failed. Einstein’s genius was to resolve all the problems with only 2 simple, clear, physical assumptions: 1) that all inertial frames are equivalent and 2) that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is the same for all observers. Using only these two assumptions he explained *all* of the experimental evidence. This is what science is about: EXPLAINING THE OBSERVED PHENOMENA. It is NOT about clever mathematics, that is what mathematics is about. The clue is in the name, for god’s sake!!!

    Oh and by the way, what did Einstein win his Nobel prize for? Nothing to do with relativity! Instead, it was for introducing the idea of photons (Planck did not use them anywhere in his work, I’ve read the original paper). Crucially, he claimed that the quantum hypotheses was a real physical phenomena and not just a fudge to fix a particular calculation. For instance, he used these ideas to explain the both the photoelectric effect and the strange properties of the heat capacity of crystalline solids.

    With these two pieces of work, he had completely over thrown the last 4oo years of scientific thinking. This is one of the most profound intellectual achievements in history. But he didn’t do any fancy mathematics, so obviously he is an idiot. Oh and I’ve not even half way through describing Einstein’s contributions to science. There is also his work on Brownian motion, which lead to experimental work that final laid to rest the question of whether atoms existed. This work is also very important in describing random process and his found applications in describing the motion of charge carriers in semiconductors and the fluctuations of global financial markets. Then there is his work on stimulated emission, which he guessed based solely from thermodynamics. This is the basis of how lasers work. There is also his work on general relativity, i.e. his theory of gravity. I could explain why this is important or what he did, but the mathematics was described by others, obviously the physics is easy. But why then didn’t Riemann or the other come up with the physical ideas. Even Hilbert, who did come up with some equations for relativity, admitted that he only managed this as Einstein had already explained all the key physical ideas to him. Did I also mention Einstein’s work on the EPR paradox. It failed to convince people that QM is wrong, but it was very important in inspiring the current field of quantum information (I know this as several of the founders of the field have actual said this).

    If this isn’t a genius, then who is? Witten perhaps? But he is a physicist, so what physics has he actually explained? What he has done is introduce some new and powerful mathematical ideas (which are often then proved by others). These ideas *might* be useful for developing new physical theories, but as of yet this hasn’t happened. In fact, not only has he not made a single testable prediction, he hasn’t made any sort of prediction (the much touted prediction of quantum gravity is not really full developed yet, so can’t be claimed as a prediction). Witten is obviously a very clever person, but his legacy in physics is thus far open to debate. In contrast, there is no debate about Einstein. Neither is there much debate about Hawking. He may not be in the same league as say Dirac or Philip Anderson. But together with Kip Thorne and Bernstein, he has revolutionized theoretical cosmology. Before their work, it was seen as a moribund field, which was best ignored by talented young scientists.

  150. Egbert Otter / Feb 10 2016 5:07 am

    This article could be in the top ten of most underrated articles. (hint of sarcasm…) If I would ever take the time to write such an article. In fact I am wandering why I am taking the trouble to write a response to this article. Probably because I haven’t figured out what meaning of life is so it won’t matter what I do with these few moments… But I still enjoy people like Michio Kaku contemplating on life so I guess this is my contribution for respect for the men who make contributions to life instead of the pitiful sucker who writes this article and makes no contribution to science or public discussion or whatever goal you can think off…

    • Lists Suck / Mar 12 2016 9:11 pm

      Science communication = planting the seeds of future breakthrough. Hawking, Sagan, Neil Tyson Degrasse, Michio Kaku, are all in that camp. How can they be called “over rated” … can the creator of this really bad list make any evaluation of that and the impact it has on physics in the future? No. This list is beyond pointless. Glad to see that most comments here seem to feel that way.

  151. Raskolnikov / Feb 6 2016 10:49 am

    This is the most poorly written article I have ever seen. You are an ignorant attention seeker who is mad at the world because you are in special ed classes. You are less than shit compared to these prestigious luminaries.

  152. Leonardo da Vinci / Jan 29 2016 10:32 pm

    Okay smartie, who would make your list of underrated genius?

    • Albert Einstein / Jan 29 2016 10:36 pm

      I’m guessing he’ll put himself in it.

      • Pat / Feb 5 2016 12:24 am

        He has some points but who is he and I think if your wanting to talk about genius of electricity and the person who made the most contributions to make the world better is no doubt Nikola Tesla without a doubt. They are actually rewriting history with Tesla and he is responsible for the function of the entire electrical grid and powering the Planet. He was more Human activists to make life easier for Humans to live in a Better world and he definitely did that!!/ working with Edison and put him out of the Electrical Business. Developed a better light bulb with first Fluorescent bulbs and lit up the Chicago’s World’s Fair with over a Hundred thousand light bulbs. Problem with Tesla is he is not good at business and kinda naive when dealing with people and so many of his inventions and patents were literally stolen buy Italian Radio plagererisism and he didn’t really care when he should have. If he found a good financial investor he would be worth Trillions of dollar’s!!!! His inventions we’re up there with the telephone. Which Alexander Graham Bell never had money problems again. Tesla simply wanted to give humanity everything for free and he thought he would be loved for it but instead he was seen as a mad Scientists and Edison had all the connections and influence with money because he was older and richer than Edison. I mean Tesla literally gave alterternate current free to Edison and he knew it of and Electrifying Elephants, Horses , Goats etc.. at the Chicaco World’s fair out of desperation. He could light a light bulb hundreds of miles away and Edison with DC would have had to build a ektectrical Plant every mile to light his Light bulb’s….. Sad!

  153. Darren / Jan 24 2016 12:23 am

    I’d imagine that if Faraday or Newton or Turing or any of the other people mentioned as being neglected by the media, were more touted in the media, they would have been called overrated. The truth is, no one invents or discovers things in a vacuum. It could be said that any invention or discovery would eventually come to be from someone. Nonetheless, this list seems to have less to do with whether a particular person should be considered a genius and more to do with arguing no one is.

    • barracuda7018 / May 31 2017 2:15 am

      Turing was overrated too.. He neither invented the computer nor he cracked the Enigma machine
      At Bletchley park most of the donkey work was made by Polish mathematicians who were neglected by the media . Konrad Zuse in Germany built the first programmable digital computer Z3 before anybody else.

  154. greatinforcer / Jan 21 2016 5:05 am

    Dude, how did you get trough school? Most of this stuff comes from the internet, and Leanardo invented a plane, did you invent one? Can you even paint? Did you come up with the big bang theory? Do you even understand wormholes? I personaly think you are just jealous!

    • Steve / Mar 11 2016 9:09 am

      Your words are awfully misspelled. I wouldn’t criticize anyone with that awful excuse for grammar.

      • greatinforcerAlex / Mar 11 2016 2:46 pm

        This post was typed by my 6 year old son, this is his profile, and I do believe that with the fact that english was learnt as a third launguage, he did good! Probably better than you!

  155. Anonymous / Jan 20 2016 2:50 pm

    i do not know how to read

  156. John Key / Jan 13 2016 4:21 am

    One thing is for sure; this writer in nogenius

  157. johnnyhenry / Jan 6 2016 8:15 am

    This article is rife with contradictions. Just take a look at how the concept of the IQ is used to (ineffectively) back up the author’s claims. First he challenges what the IQ of a particular person is without knowing if the IQ # he is challenging is accurate to begin with. His IQ argument is based upon pure speculation at best and mostly grounded in hearsay. Which makes his IQ argument worthless from its inception. The point is that therere is no way of verifying what the IQ’s of any of these individuals was. Even if we assume there’s any validity to his claims about individual IQ numbers we are still left with a dismissal of some of the greatest contributors to the field of science based upon spurious evidence. Even using IQ as a measure is faulty in and of itself.
    Actually calling what the author presents here “evidence” is being far too generous. That Einstein or any of the other scientists here mentioned borrowed and took from others and is thus undeserving of the accolades they’ve received doesn’t give any validity to the author’s contention that these scientists are basically “overrated”. What it does demonstrate is the author’s complete ignorance in the field of physics and of how scientific progress is made. Just as in literature any and all scientific progress is a handing down and across of information and theory from one individual to the next. In literature a writer, whether consciously or not, is creating a new literary work that is influenced and contains the markers of the “DNA” of its predecessor’s work. In science all new discovery both evidentiary and theoretical bears the characteristics of the scientific work done by science and scientists that came before. Whether or not we like it, and for better or worse. Either way, in essence, one can rightly say that original thought and new genuine original discovery has been made by just about all of the scientists the author attempts to discredit.
    The main argument of the article that these people are overrated geniuses is entirely unsupported subjectivism. If he thinks that Einstein was nothing more than a borrower then he is failing to recognize Einstein’s contributions to the field of physics, and more importantly, as I previously explained, how progress in science is made. Even the individuals who he claims Einstein owes his due to, they themselves borrowed and expanded upon earlier work made by scientists who came before.
    That aside to say Einstein was a poor mathematician is nonsense. Besides teaching himself geometry, differential and integral calculus by the age of 12 he had a near perfect score on the math component of the entrance exam to Zurich Polytechnique University at the age of 16. The reality is, Einstein’s true passion was outside of math, which is why he was able to formulate his General Relativity theory, which in fact, contains mathematics (ten coupled, nonlinear, hyperbolic-elliptical partial differential equations) that itself is so elegant and beautiful that only a genius could have been the author of their construction.
    As for the claims made about DaVinci…his contributions in anatomy, botany, engineering, and art are second to few. He precedes Copernicus in identifying the sun as the center of the universe, he precedes Galileo in ideas about using magnification to observe celestial bodies, and put forth theories about the nature of gravity well before Newton came along. In just about every case mentioned in this article claims can be made for the accomplishments of these individuals that validates their legitimacy as what can be called “genius”. The problem is that genius is just a word anyway and thus a silly way to try to devalue how accomplished and intelligent these people were. Whatever claims made in this article about how overrated these people are falls flat in the face of their real world accomplishments, especially when looked at in their position in the progress of science and technology.

    • Anonymous / Jan 6 2016 9:15 pm

      This guy said it perfectly. I second this.

    • Anonymous / Apr 20 2016 4:37 am

      Thank you

  158. Chris / Jan 4 2016 8:15 pm

    This article is overrated. No accurate points. Check your own intelligence level before criticizing others.

  159. ThatDaveguy / Jan 1 2016 6:31 pm

    How many times can the phrase “basically ignored by the media” be used in a single article?

  160. Sean / Jan 1 2016 12:15 pm

    So basically you just picked the 10 most popular people in “genius land” and claimed they were all over-rated. Give me a break. Hawking? Einstein? Over-rated? You are crazy…. and to say “literally impossible that DaVinci had an IQ over 200”, really? There is no way you could know this.

  161. Anthony,w.Patrick (@unuseable55) / Dec 27 2015 4:53 pm

    all the thoughts of all the greatest men are important to the fullfilment of mankind but the thing they are missing is what they have and never will know how to be an individual in an ever changing world thing might seem what they are but times change and people don’t,think about it ,the world is full of turmoil and no one has an answer,I have one burn the damned and spare the true.

  162. Cris Verdonik / Dec 23 2015 9:41 pm

    Ed Witten is the greatest genius of our time, and Tesla the greatest of the 20th century, bar none. Before that the obvious such as the greats of 1800s (Maxwell, Faraday) and of course the scientists before that (Newton), and even ancient genius like Democritus. Einstein’s “genius” comes from putting other’s work together and piecing the great theory together, not shabby at all. But Edison? Hawking? Gates? Come on. In the latter case, knowing which way to best rip people off is hardly genius, although smart for sure. In the former two, it’s obvious both were in the shadows of great men, but Edison used fame while Hawking used one great discovery to continue their ascent. Sometimes true genius takes time for the world to see, such as with Mozart, sometimes it is unfortunately ignored. Let’s hope that history will give credit where it’s due, there is always time. Tesla is making a huge comeback.

  163. kaalen / Dec 14 2015 6:37 pm

    Itsnobody must be given credit. He has sat down and put his thoughts on paper and has put forward his arguments as to why he wrote what he wrote. Yes he has stirred up a lot of heated reactions. It would help is itsnobody came out of his anonymity and told us who he is what his credentials are. Perhaps he is a PhD in history and has done sound research to back up his assertions. At any rate I think he is right by requesting that people come up with rational rebuttals rather than cheap shots to his persona.

  164. Ahmet Birsen / Dec 14 2015 12:18 pm

    Agree with number 2 .Pythagoras ..Euler and Gauss were far more influential, they are the fathers of the modern math. not to mention Laplace and Leibniz.

  165. Joseph / Dec 14 2015 10:26 am

    Although you have to remove Albert Einstein and hawking from this list.. which makes your entire post rubbish…

  166. Joseph / Dec 14 2015 10:23 am

    I agree with Ed Witten… most people don’t know about him… And of course media is for entertainment… so they only say about fancy and decorated people, but not hard working people like witten… as people don’t know him…

  167. Jan Fersani (@LaBandeMajeure) / Dec 6 2015 6:43 am you measure the geniu by only IQ?..sorry but this is just giving an idea only about ‘your IQ’..

  168. MattyG / Dec 3 2015 6:26 pm

    How can you say William James Sidis is an overrated genius although he had the highest iq of all time, yet say further on that da Vinci is an overrated genius because what he did does not show he has a high iq? I really hope your blog is satirical because a majority of what you say is incredibly stupid. You’re some sort of knowledge hipster who lacks knowledge. Read a book bud.

    • PrismPrecipitation / Dec 13 2015 2:47 am

      One of the biggest myths is this assertion that Sidis had the highest IQ ever. Read the following

      “The clip itself is from Grady Towers’ “The Outsiders”. A large percentage of popular online myths about William Sidis came from “The Outsiders”. “The Outsiders” (1987) was based on “The Prodigy” (1986) plus a lot of half-truths and inventions. “The Prodigy” was predominately a sensationalized account of hearsay and invention. As an example, “The Prodigy” claimed that Sperling gave Sidis an IQ test for a civil service job and estimated Sidis’ IQ at 250-300. Sperling himself wrote in “A Story of Genius” that Sidis’ sister, Helena, told him that a psychiatrist had given William Sidis the test and that the other psychiatrist estimated the IQ at 250-300. Records of Helena portrayed her to exaggerate on other topics, and it is possible that Helena’s comments may have been exaggerations or outright inventions. The information in “The Prodigy” was not true, and thus the information in “The Outsiders” was not true. A letter written by William Sidis stated that he had taken a civil service exam, that he passed the state clerical exam, and that he was number 254 on the list; “not so encouraging”. It may never be known if Sidis actually did take an IQ test, and it may never be known if the 250-300 number arrived from Sidis’ placement in the job pool. ”

      • Isak / Mar 19 2016 11:44 pm

        Actually, the estimate of 250-300 is based on what is called a ratio IQ. If a 3 year-old is at the same developmental stage as a 9 year-old, then his ratio iq is 300. This is not how IQ’s are typically measured nowadays, and is not better than what for instance Terence Tao has performed. To excel in this measure, one need not be extraordinarily intelligent, just extraordinarily precocious.

  169. starinsideahumansuit / Nov 20 2015 5:47 pm

    As if you idiots put William James Sidis on your stupid little list… Have you no idea what “super-elastic collisions” are? The author is indeed a morons.

  170. Omer / Nov 18 2015 6:57 pm

    Einstein is a genius
    You are sayin that is an long distant jumper athlete is not good in sprinting then he is not a great athlete
    Da vinci is overrated because he never done anything that requaired high iq
    Why would dolphin will have a capacity of energy of elephant, thats a 100% proof

    Why men have a lot of gray matter ?
    Why women have a lot of wnite matter?
    Einstein is also smart

  171. Learncontrol / Nov 15 2015 6:51 pm

    Sidis is overrated? Because of his lack of contribution? It doesn’t make him anything less then the smartest person that this human race is aware of. We never know what Sidis would’ve done with his intelligence if his brain hadn’t exploded, and if everyone wasn’t so critical of his intelligence.
    Personally, I wish we knew more about Jesus Christ ( The real one not the pedestalized indoctrinated version) it would be really interesting to know what his level of IQ was.

    • itsnobody / Nov 16 2015 11:26 am

      My definition of “genius” is an individual who makes contributions that very few humans can.

      IQ is just a made up test…so if someone has a really high IQ but can’t contribute anything then who cares?

      On the other hand if someone comes up with contributions that anyone could make or are just lucky that doesn’t mean they are a “genius” IMO either.

      So my definition of “genius” eliminates both high IQ individuals that contribute nothing and individuals that contribute things that anyone can.

      As for Jesus Christ, if he really had superhuman cognitive abilities he should be able to do IQ-puzzles easily.

    • Ahmet Birsen / Dec 14 2015 12:22 pm

      Sidis IQ has never been officially tested so its all speculation..

  172. Anonymous / Nov 5 2015 5:43 am

    only a frustrated coward can publish such a ignorant text.
    Blaming people for using known knowledge to go further is – sorry – stupid. just to write the text above it needet almost ALL inventions of mankind. even if the author is too simple to understand that.

    • Anonymous / Nov 12 2015 10:09 pm

      He is, right now, in fact using other people’s knowledge and research to support his opinion. Doesn’t that go against what the idiot “Leonardo” said? Such a child.

  173. Bryce / Nov 3 2015 3:36 pm

    Im sorry but Da Vinci is not overrated because IQ tests dont test how good you are in everything they only tell you how good you are at IQ tests. Also you try making a concept of a revolutionary invention and make a prototype then get it to work first time whoever writ this was jealous AF

  174. Truie / Oct 21 2015 10:16 pm

    How about we are all wrong a genius is only a thought a opinion so we basically are all fucking out rating everybody and ourself who are we anyways.

    • Truie / Oct 21 2015 10:31 pm

      Also are we just hating on this guys we jealous are some shit just to do this to blow off steam we niggas need to chill the fuck out.

  175. Radu Lucian / Oct 12 2015 9:03 am

    i dont know who you are,or how smart do you think you are,but i think you are very frustrated and you made this article with a very small database and very superficially,leonardo da vinci is not overrated because he had one of the best visual memory of all people in the world,and that’s a sign of high intelligence,and another sign of high intelligence was the fact that he was good not in just one domain,he was good in a lot of areas and domains,so if you think you are smart you are probably not:))

  176. Anonymous / Oct 8 2015 12:44 am

    Well this article was a waste of my time. The fact that Da Vinci is even on this list makes me laugh. Da Vinci was more of a jack of all trades. His paintings are regarded so highly because of how they resemble human physiology. You can’t measure genius based on iq alone. This list is total bull and everybody that has an ounce of intelligence knows that. Leaving some guys like Steve jobs off while you include bill gates leaves me wandering…

  177. itsnobody- part 2 / Oct 2 2015 4:58 am

    You were a bit too harsh with Vinci (his inventions- I agree with u; but his paintings were really masterpiece). I love Einstein (one of my fav), michio kaku (only bcoz of his beautiful popular science books), Edison (his life inspires me), but I still, to some extent, agree with you. But your definition of ‘genius’ needs to be refined.

  178. Anonymous / Oct 2 2015 4:52 am

    You were a bit too harsh with Vinci (his inventions- I agree with u; but his paintings were really masterpiece). I love Einstein (one of my fav), michio kaku (only bcoz of his beautiful popular science books), Edison, but I still, to some extent, agree with you. But your definition of genius needs to be refined.

  179. Anonymous / Oct 2 2015 4:25 am

    although I like many of those scientific you claimed to be ‘overrated’, I think I agree to what you say, at least most of them

  180. Chris / Sep 23 2015 6:49 pm

    One of the dumbest lists I’ve ever seen. You have a really narrow definition of the word genius. You also proved you don’t understand anything about art as da Vinci’s paintings are so important and ahead of their time bevause they display an extremely deep understanding of human psychology. The Mona Lisa for example displays two different emotions depending where in the painting the viewer looks. Also it doesn’t matter if his inventions worked, the fact he even had those ideas hundreds of years before other people did is remarkable on its own.

  181. RespectfullyDisagree / Sep 23 2015 1:36 pm

    What gives you a position to judge? I think, the list is good, but overrated on Einstein and Gates? When you mention atheists in a negative connotation, this immediately disqualifies you as a thinker.

  182. Sampan Chakraborty / Sep 20 2015 6:56 am

    Cult of personality of a scientist is often being created by media and common people love to swim in that cult without understanding it.I discussed it in detail at Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle.I also made a graph IQ on x-axis & intelligence on Y-axis and made a graphical comparison between it.

    But I don’t think Hawking,Einstein or Da Vinci are over rated.

  183. jack clousseau / Sep 18 2015 3:11 pm

    special mention – Neil deGrasse VonLoudmouth Tyson.

    • Anonymous / Sep 20 2015 6:51 pm

      Tyson’s invented nothing. He’s just a student of the game. Two words: Affirmative Action.

      • PrismPrecipitation / Dec 13 2015 2:48 am

        How racist to assume he got where he did just because he is black.

  184. Anonymous / Sep 16 2015 12:01 pm

    Genius = What you do AFTER SCHOOL, not IN SCHOOL.

    A genius has visions.

  185. Joseph Kool / Sep 14 2015 10:57 am

    Steve Jobs should probably be on this list. People seem to think he invented just about everything.

    • Ahmet Birsen / Jan 7 2016 7:09 am

      The other Steve called ‘ Wos’ is the inventor of the modern personal computer we use today
      Jobs was a marketing genius.

  186. Anonymous / Sep 12 2015 7:27 am

    Judging from your poor grammatical skills, I would say that you are in no position to write an article on this topic.

    • Anonymous / Oct 19 2015 12:18 pm


  187. Anonymous / Sep 8 2015 12:18 pm

    Please don’t use the word “GENIUS” freely. There are lots of people who have very high IQ and GPA and go to prestigious school such as MIT and Harvard and so on, but that doesn’t automatically qualify them as geniuses.

    Geniuses are people who come up (or modify existing ones) with some things their own (VISIONS). Being a genius means you have invented something (Having that theories or equations under your name). Einstein was just a tag average in school and was not very good in math (His equations were created with the help of a couple of mathematicians). Bill Gate and Steve Jobs were college dropouts (Bill Gate could write computer programming codes while Steve Jobs could not). Edison was average in school. Faraday didn’t know much about math because of his humble upbringing (Maxwell, a mathematician, helped him to come up with those equations). Again, the point is that a genius is the one who invents something. Excelling in academic don’t automatically qualify you as a genius (You are a good student in that field, though, and that by no means is easy).

    • Joseph Kool / Sep 14 2015 11:11 am

      A lot of people are educated fools and then you have highly educated fools.

    • IdiotKiller / Sep 17 2015 8:09 pm

      You’re the true moron here. Because you have an arbitrary definition of genius and swing it around like your tiny little pecker as if it’s THE definition.

      You obviously have an inferiority complex about people who have high IQ’s and people who go to prestigious schools.

      Not sure why. Probably because you have a low IQ and couldn’t get into those schools.

      But since you’re not capable of being rational.

      Why don’t you fuck off 🙂

      • Anonymous / Sep 20 2015 7:07 pm

        Wow, going by your logic I am also a genius since I have high IQ and G.P.A. There are tons of people who’ve attended prestigious schools, and you think they are all geniuses? For a second thought, I am ok with yours since it’s a free country and you are entitled to your own opinion.

        Faraday didn’t get the chance to go to higher education due to his humble upbringing. Einstein was average in school. Edison was also an average student. Hawking was not that brilliant in school as he barely did enough to get by. You got the picture? Using movie directors as an analogy, a great movie director must depend on what films he has directed. No beating around the bush. No myths. It’s show and tell.

  188. CoolMoeDee / Sep 4 2015 10:56 pm

    I would be willing to bet that the individuals for whom you say deserve more recognition would place these “overrated” geniuses in their top 10. What then?

  189. Anonymous / Sep 4 2015 6:51 pm

    I personally think Hawking to be overrated. He’s come up with two main things: (1) A black hole won’t last forever and will lose its energy through radiation; and (2) Information will be lost in a black hole, which have been proven wrong by many scientists.

    So tell me, in terms of scientific contributions, what does Hawking do that are so mind boggling?

    • anon / Sep 13 2015 10:06 pm

      Do you have any idea of Physics? If you really did, you would not have posted such a lame comment.

      • Anonymous / Sep 16 2015 11:59 am

        You either have to come up with something tangible or shut your stupid mouth. Those above-mentioned two theories are of Hawking. His second theory has been proven wrong (He admitted it) by other scientists.

        No mythology here. If you want to discuss physics with me, you’d better come up with something tangible. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

  190. Anonymous / Sep 4 2015 6:46 pm

    So, a $ 64,000 question is: What makes a person a genius?

    It’s what you invent or contribute. I could careless about IQ of 200 or above. If a high-IQ guy who sits all day memorizing things and spitting them back out (right a frigging parrot), then he is not a genius since he does not invent anything.

    Bill Gate is a genius because he knew all along that software would control the computer world. There comes Microsoft Windows or Operating Systems.

    A genius has a vision that other normal people don’t. You don’t need a PhD to be considered a genius.

  191. LL / Sep 1 2015 6:06 pm

    Also it should be mentioned that early manuscripts and letters suggest that Einstein used material and research of his first wife Mileva and subsequently claimed them as his own without ever giving her any credit.

  192. Anonymous / Sep 1 2015 6:59 am

    I would call you an idiot. But then I’d be wrong.. Let me just call you an overreated asshole, who does not have any idea about real physical contributions of Einstein, Hawking and even Da Vinci.. Next time think before you post.

    • LL / Sep 1 2015 5:58 pm

      Any idiot can name call. Why don’t you provide some evidence to refute the author’s statements instead?

  193. roblm / Aug 27 2015 6:32 am

    Instead of making a negative list and making yourself seem a little foolish; you should have made a list of underrated geniuses. You talk about Tesla, Newton, Gauss. I would rather hear about their achievements and why you admire them. But you sound like a whiney bitch moaning that your team didn’t get thru the playoffs and the teams that did are undeserving.

  194. Anonymous2 / Aug 7 2015 12:58 pm

    Leonardo da Vinci was observer, he acquired most of his knowledge through observing details, and it seems that is what we lack today. You also seem to forget you learn from mistakes, and his inventions were not highly tested, and the ones that were, actually worked. He also wrote from right to left, and if he did it because he was left-handed, then at least he had the brain to solve that problem. The Mona Lisa is said to be created from a equation that Vinci modified, and you can’t say that he did not get very far in math, because the Vitruvian Man was a prime example of his complex mathematical ability and observation. He also taught himself Italian, which was an impressive ability. His IQ can be calculated from all of his works over his lifetime and he was a great polymath, because of his works and knowledge in different subject areas.
    Now, Albert Einstein had trouble with math and language arts, so to be able to get the formula E=mc2 he had to have great abilities in math, and science, furthermore, he modified some of Newton’s theories when it came to quantum physics, which was impressive, and therefore it just shows you that Newton did not formulate his theories in every types of physic, which he should have in order to be better than Einstein. Needless to say, Einstein was also the one who helped the allies won WWII, when he contacted President Roosevelt that an atomic bomb was possible, was it possible? Well, Japan sure found that it was.
    Also if you want to criticize intelligent people, who had none of the technologies today,then you should go through life and not use any technologies and see if you can discover something mind blowing. IQ, is part of intelligence, but people really should aim for intellect, which your ‘overrated geniuses’, actually had, unlike you.

  195. DOCJK / Aug 4 2015 11:40 pm

    Interesting article. What exactly is a “genius” anyway? It’s only within the last 100 years that IQ tests have arisen. Do these tests truly measure “intelligence”? Or do they measure information that already relies on a brain trained along certain educational modes and thus culturally induced? How would one measure the “intelligence” of a Cro-Magnon individual who inhabited a world 30,000 ya? The term “genius” carries many cultural and social connotations. Baggage if you will. One must be cautious in its use. The chief thing I found irritating about the article is that the author kept mentioning so-and-so was, or was not, mentioned by the media, suggesting that to be recognized as a “genius” by the media creates our current cultural connotation. Maybe it does. But anyone who has pursued an investigation of a particular person’s contribution to knowledge doesn’t give a whit what the media say.

  196. homelesshenry / Aug 2 2015 10:33 am

    Ops list is not all that wrong.

    Its the top 10 overrated geniuses, meaning they had to be rated very highly in the first place.

    What are your counter claims?

    For the people talking about Einstein you are both correct and incorrect. Einstein is regarded highly by majority of top physicists but if you look at his contributions fame — he is in a sense overrated.

    Considering his name is synonymous with genius — literally a synonym of the word — were his contributions so much more profound than anyone ever before him to hold such a title?

    Thats what op means.

  197. Anonymous / Jul 29 2015 6:38 pm

    You’re an idiot, and IQ has nothing to do with measuring intelligence.

  198. Anonymous / Jul 29 2015 10:57 am

    In the kindest words possible, you are an idiot of the highest form. Some of the people you mentioned have expanded the vastness of human knowledge. You’re vicious review is perhaps a reflection of your own intelligence.. Or lack of.

  199. SusieV / Jul 25 2015 3:28 pm

    Have to agree. Leonardo’s art was sub par, the DNA helix has roots in ancient Egypt. Einstein’s social commentary particularly his observation of race relations makes him a genius to me, stephen hawkins is an anomaly and celebrated due to his physical limitations (that doesn’t stop him from fancying prostitutes though), Edison stole his idea from another man whom he is rumored to have murdered, the other Greek philosopher and intellects acquired (read: stole) their intellect from the ancient Egyptians. The author listed supportive data so this list is not a subjective opinion. People need to be open to challenging the drivel that is spewed.

  200. Anonymous / Jul 22 2015 1:47 pm

    This list was going pretty ok, but since u listed some people like einstein, da vinci, hawking u lost all ur credibility, and ur arguments: IQ, what the fuck, IQ cant really tell anything about a person being a genius or not.

  201. michel / Jul 16 2015 2:22 pm

    you are jst foolish… see your agessive language. you are comparing scientist with their brain.. scientist are judged by their stop talking this rubbish. and albert einstein views are original. he just used math of riemann. it is an art to turn mathematical idea into physical reality. every invetion aur theory is a key to other theory.. u jst fuck off

  202. Simon Thomas Keel / Jul 15 2015 8:01 pm

    Poorly written, based on the authors own conjecture. There are many reasons why Albert Einstein is believed to be a genius. Also the author doesn’t understand art or the mind of da Vinci. He is making the assumption an artist can’t be a genius. da Vinci was in fact a genius. He was the greatest polymath of all time.

  203. Uddipta / Jul 15 2015 4:23 pm

    Ur saying Einstein,hawking and da vinci is overrated.C’mon Einstein give d relativity theory which. Change our view to universe and as u say e=mc^2 is not only Einstein’s theory what. About photoelectric effect..
    And hawking he cant even move his body still he cracking d puzzles of universe.
    And about da vinci may be his helcopter didn’t. Work but at his time it was far more advance.And what about his artwork isn’t dt genious…

  204. screamingclown / Jul 5 2015 4:40 am

    Stephen Hawking come on can we even say he is alive at this point? Besides a wheelchair like Professor X I think science will eventually give the man a Darth Vadar make over.

    The most brilliant brain storm of Hawkings I have ever heard was on aliens, according Hawkings aliens will visit us in a thousand years. No explanations, no theories as to why, they will just appear out of thin air because it’s a thousand years. Maybe they will have giant boners and bleed acid from their eye sockets idunno I’m not a physicist but at this point anything goes.

    Despite Michiokaku hate, I would like to add the man has contributed more to science than most people realize. Most of NATO intel had no clue as to how to help Japan’s nuclear crisis, Kaku actually addressed the problem that no one had considered. By impounding the site with sand bags in order to contain the blast. I think people who are biased towards him are mostly internet trolls that can’t except the fact humans actually make mistakes and aren’t perfect. That or its just pure bigotry.

    Bill Gates is a genius, your definition of genius may vary. You were wrong to believe people think that Gates invented the computer. No one thinks that only a bunch of Nazi Apples socialites sucking on the grape fruit for an Apple world. In fact it wasn’t Apple that created the fucking gui that was Xerox and Apple stole it and tried to sue them. Gates created DOS and later created Windows, this didn’t appeal to Apple because Microsoft were selling to the PC market. Gates is a genius because he revolutionized in creating a working operating system, where Apple had to beg, plead and steal ideas. The only thing Apple revolutionized on were font characters that’s about it.

    As for the rest of your ramblings Franklin and Einstein had a few hundred years difference so the Clarke and Faraday theory wouldn’t work there. Nice nip in the butt try though, its almost as worse as patenting ideas you are practically remaking history.

    • itsnobody / Jul 9 2015 1:05 pm

      Here’s what I have to say to your comment: LOL

  205. dave spart / Jul 3 2015 1:35 pm

    Obama the president of the US is certainly a genius.He bagged himself the nobel peace prize while waging wars against third world countries.
    His wife Michelle has some very close relatives living in the Rwandan Highlands…she even looks like ’em.Einstein gets a high rating in the media because he is Jewish.Jews control the Wests media 100%…it is therefore natural they promote the plagiarist to the max..
    Jews have a talent for self publicity which is why you avoid having them on any research team….they will hijack the outcome for their own benefit.At least the racist state of Israel is being shunned in academia!!

  206. Sane Person / Jul 1 2015 12:04 am

    When judging Kaku and Hawking you claim that neither would be listed among the greatest physicists by physicists. Then when you come to Einstein, that criterion is suddenly no longer important. Why? Almost every accomplished physicist would place Einstein among the top 5, probably top 3, physicists in history. While mathematical ability is obviously important in physics, it is obviously not all there is to being a great physicist. You like Witten and Weinberg, but I’ll bet both of them would put Einstein in their top 3.

  207. Anonymous / Jun 27 2015 7:49 pm

    youre an idiot xD

  208. Feiselski / Jun 23 2015 3:28 pm

    It could have given more sense if u changed the topic to “Dumba$$ called “Geniuses” for no reason also could have been better if u add Charles Darwin and Osho for being exaggerated as a pioneers for their shitty work!

  209. lucas / Jun 13 2015 3:04 pm

    This list is completely retarded although I can agree that some of the are indeed overrated,their work and achievements proves their genius,in the case of William sidis you don’t need to make contributions to mathematical or/physical science in order to be a genius,if it was IQ test would be based on one’s work not on logical and rational tests.
    This is a ridiculous list.

  210. Donivan / Jun 10 2015 7:40 am

    Funny how you keep bringing IQ into the equation, when any intelligent person who knows anything about intelligence will tell you that IQ is not an accurate measurement of intelligence as intelligence is a lot more complicated than that.

  211. Anonymous / Jun 9 2015 5:21 am


  212. and / Jun 4 2015 8:37 pm

    The author selectively picks out certain points to support his arguments, while completely ignoring others. What a pathetic attempt.

    • Anonymous / Jun 9 2015 5:25 am


      • Anonymous / Nov 23 2015 8:21 pm

        Tesla was a genius
        Heron was a genius
        Archamedes also. .but the main man was Hermes Tristmagismus !!…
        Einstein was a plagiaristan idiot simpleton who couldn’t even do his own tie or tie his he absolutely hated white peoplesome people reckon he was the one who gave Russia the bombnow now there’s no need for foul language like that especially when you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about

  213. Thrillster / Jun 3 2015 4:45 am

    BRILLIANT! I’ve never read/seen a worse piece of keyboard warrioring. Congratulations.

    I am innately curious about intelligence after having had a tough start in life. My observations show that it comes in many forms and that IQ fails as a measure of a humans overall ability to solve.

    I have worked with many so called ‘Intelligent’ people during my life. Whilst they may excel in what ever sphere they predominate it more often than not produces a lack else where in their persona. more often than not in empathy/intrapersonal skills.

    • Anonymous / Nov 23 2015 8:24 pm

      Well said

  214. Anonymous / May 30 2015 2:49 am

    I would love to know how Charles Darwin was left off of this list. Or many of the great composers or philosophers. Seems like any of these people that are considered great geniuses with no proof in their field would rank higher as over rated.

  215. Matt / May 29 2015 7:36 pm

    Not only do I strongly disagree with your shit post but I think you are a fucking idiot. Misinformation should be a crime!

    • itsnobody / Jul 9 2015 10:08 am

      The atheist-controlled media has no issue with misinformation promoting atheistic idealogy, like the “Dark Ages” myth and other lies thoroughly debunked by historians as I explained in my other post –

      I’ve asked atheists to name me just ONE civilization in all of pre-science human history where “After gaining food, water, and shelter they just spontaneously felt like studying astronomy and philosophy for no reason”…and they can’t name any.

      According to atheists what would realistically have happened without religion is that “After gaining food, water, and shelter people would just feel like studying astronomy and philosophy and then the scientific revolution would occur”…ROFL…so which civilization came up with an advanced astronomical model without a religion causing them? There is none in all of human history.

      In reality everything that led up to the scientific revolution (studying astronomy and philosophy) would’ve definitely been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to atheists.

      They can’t handle the truth that religion directly caused the scientific revolution.

      I explained a world without religion (specifically Christianity) in my other article –

      Here’s a real “World Without Christianity”, Life Expectancy in the year 1961 (a few decades ago):

      – Switzerland (the 1st or 2nd most religious Christian Western country): 71
      – United States (religious country): 70
      – United Kingdom (religious country): 70
      – China (an atheist country): 43

      Source: World Bank

      LOL…don’t atheists use China as a great example?

      I can be 100% certain that atheism and non-religion blocks human progress, holds back science, and threatens mankind as the historical evidence clearly shows us.

      Only 15%-25% of people in China were literate in the year 1949…lol.

      Famine was prevalent throughout all of Chinese history until very very very recently (like the 1990s)…lol.

      Only through the force of government or with having something like a religion can countries become developed because humans are just animals and behave like other animals without a religion (or something just like a religion) telling them to act otherwise!

      If India or China had been Christianized like the Caribbean countries like Barbados I wonder how far they would’ve been in modern times.

      Barbados is still more developed than both India and China, still struggling to become developed.

      Humans need food, water, and shelter for survival…you don’t need to be literate for basic survival.

      We’re all born illiterate, that’s what atheists want for society.

      Whenever I talk to atheists they never provide any evidence to support their delusions, just a bunch of crap from cartoon shows and atheist blog sites.

      Why don’t atheists just go home and live the same way as chimpanzees and other animals?

      Eventually atheists are going to try to exterminate science or science will naturally go into disuse if the atheist population goes up high enough.

      People have to realize the threat atheism and non-religion poses to society, that atheists are trying to take over.

      • Anonymous / Aug 6 2015 2:47 pm

        Some people seem to make comments that are trifling at best. Please don’t talk about things that you know nothing about. India and China have made quite a lot of contributions to the world. If you just try to find things for instance , you will feel sorry for your own ignorant remark- Sanskrit is a scientific language – there were brilliant mathematicians in India . Solutions of quadratic equations were carved into their monuments years before the europeans solved it- Just search for the Ajanta and Alora caves- the Ashokan iron pillar that has no rust even today- civilizations rise and fall and rise again- don’t be biased pal , whether christian or not people who are curious about their immediate surroundings do end up doing something.

      • DaTruth / Jun 29 2017 1:09 pm

        You seem obsessed with atheists, a term you antirealists created to classify non believers and use as propaganda. It is not a philosophical movement but why would you care, you committed philosophical suicide a long time ago.

  216. aakabkan / May 16 2015 8:47 am

    I think in general pure philosophers are among the most overrated persons. If they were that ingenious, they could contribute with something more useful than just philosophical thoughts.

    I also find Galileo a bit overrated. He didn’t invent the telescope, he wasn’t even the first to use it to look at the sky (although he was better at interpreting what he saw than others at his time). He did neither invent the scientific method with experiments, that had been used over centuries in the muslim world, with Alhazen as the most notable example, and even some Greeks like Strato and Archimedes used it. Although he made a significant contribution to science with his experiments, none of his experiments were very advanced and he didn’t develope any new mathematics. I’d still call him a genius, but I can think of at least 20 scientists and inventors I’d rate higher

    Here are my suggestions of what I consider to be the greatest geniuses of all time:
    2.Isaac Newton
    3.Albert Einstein
    4.Nikola Tesla
    5.Leonardo da Vinci
    6.Carl Friedrich Gauss
    7.Bernhard Riemann
    8.Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
    9.Henri Poincaré
    10.Leonhard Euler
    11.Zhang Heng
    12.James Clerk Maxwell
    13.Hero of Alexandria
    15.Évariste Galois
    16.Shinichi Mochizuki
    17.Bhāskara II
    18.Johannes Kepler
    20.Edward Witten

    • Anonymous / Jun 9 2015 5:28 am


    • itsnobody / Jul 9 2015 10:05 am

      Well why don’t you post your own list on your own blog site? Anyone can make a blog site.

      This is just my personal opinion, the only one on my list I would agree maybe could be removed is Einstein.

    • CoolMoeDee / Sep 4 2015 11:03 pm

      All of these guys are mathematicians. Some of them belong, some don’t. I agree with Archimedes, Newton, Gauss, Tesla, Da Vinci, Leibniz and Euler. Especially Da Vinci and Leibniz.

    • Ahmet Birsen / Jan 7 2016 7:07 am

      Leibniz is ahead of anyone , for many the greatest universal genius ever lived. Euler must be ahead of Newton .For gods sake, he was blind when he almost invented the most of mathematics we have today.

      • John P / Jul 31 2016 5:23 am

        Newton is the greatest scientific genius who ever lived

      • Ahmet Birsen / Aug 17 2016 7:23 am

        John P this is of course according to Brits as expected ..

    • John P / Jul 31 2016 5:21 am

      Err, Paul Dirac?

  217. floyd / May 15 2015 4:07 am

    what makes one a genius? send your comments or points to i will be very grateful

  218. Roy / May 13 2015 7:25 am

    Joke? Hmmm wait not quite the word to describe this best! Seeing as you’ve managed to top all these great minds you slander, Why not tell me what word would best describe this contradictive comedy strip you call a page.. To quote you “The Xerox Alto is one of the first personal computers” not the first a cording to your links secondly “William Sidis doesn’t have any significant contributions” your arguement is theres no contributions as in contributions are what determine genuis then yes? Well with that sayd you realize the reason why 9/10 of those “idiots” are in the history books and there so called counterparts arent is because they dint contribute to anything great or beyond there time..Sir who ever you’re i suggest you brush up on your common knowledge.. Before trying to slander 8 of the greatest minds in history..

  219. Anonymous / May 11 2015 3:11 pm

    You have no idea what the heck you are talking about! Leonardo invented so many things that we use today and how do you know he isn’t a genius? Were you his best friend as a kid or are you a kid because this article STINKS!

    • itsnobody / Jul 9 2015 9:31 am

      lol…what did he invent? Failed flying machines and a bunch of pictures?

      Everything about Da Vinci is grossly exaggerated.

      • Truie / Oct 21 2015 10:25 pm

        True just stating facts they got off of somebody if they do get an answer

    • John P / Jul 31 2016 5:26 am

      Leonardo invented many of the things we use today?

      It’s comments like these that make me despair at the stupidity of people

  220. Petros Orloff / May 10 2015 7:15 pm

    Replace the word probably with ‘i am guessing’ and you got the correct meaning of the article.
    PS) There are video’s of Susskind and others saying explicitly that when they have a new theory they go to Hawking…what does that action show? Probably?

    • Petros Orloff / May 10 2015 7:17 pm

      *videos…sorry typo, keys are right next to each other

  221. PC / Apr 23 2015 7:59 am

    Yes of course, many celebrated geniuses stole/borrowed from others to advance their reputations..the practice is still in vogue today. Should your motivation be to belittle great thinkers of the past in the interest of your religion…well then you had better consider the fact that most of the planets people now see the origins of Christianity as a fable or mind/population control experiment…devised by those wanting control over others. Your leaders and thinkers are at least as baseless in fact as the ones mentioned in your list.

    • itsnobody / May 7 2015 9:29 pm

      What are you fools (atheists) talking about?

      I’m still waiting to hear one example of a pre-science civilization in all of human history that came up with an advanced astronomical model WITHOUT a religion causing them to.

      The historical evidence shows us that humans need food, water, and shelter for survival not an advanced astronomical model (physics).

      Atheism and science are incompatible, I don’t know why any atheist would participate in science since they view it as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time.

      Why don’t they just go home instead of turning science into a laughable popularity contest where authority and incredulity matters more than empirical observations and valid reasoning?

      After atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s we immediately stopped finding cures, the life expectancy started growing slower, physics became stuck with empirically untestable models, technology started growing slower, and science is turning into pseudoscience.

      They consider empirically untestable mathematical models like the String theory as “science” LOL, what a joke.

      Atheists can’t do anything right.

      They have no NEED to know the truth like how I do.

      The historical evidence clearly shows us that atheism and non-religion have always been the biggest blocks to human progress, the greatest enemy of reason, thinking, science, logic, and the greatest threat to mankind.

      People have to realize the real serious threat that atheism and non-religion poses to society.

      People have to realize what atheists are trying to do to society.. .what’s going to happen eventually if people become atheistic/agnostic/non-religious enough is that people will naturally become illiterate since we are all born illiterate, science will either naturally go into disuse or atheists will try to exterminate science viewing it as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time…the same as a religion, and humans will revert to the state of an animal!

      Atheists are always trying to force and impose their way and their fictional beliefs onto the world!

      I bet the majority of atheists who read this were unaware that religion directly caused the scientific revolution and believed the Dark Ages myth lie put out in the atheist-controlled media…it shows you how uneducated and gullible atheists are and how well-controlled the media is by atheists.

      The historical consensus is that religion directly caused the scientific revolution…this is normal history not even controversial or debatable…you can contact any historian from any University and ask them about it…it’s a real shame that the media is so well-controlled by atheists/anti-science fans always trying to force their way and their beliefs onto society.

      If the media hadn’t been so well-controlled by atheists and anti-religious people we would predict that the media would tell people the actual historical consensus and what the historical evidence shows, not a bunch of crap from atheist books and blog sites thoroughly debunked by historians.

      The Church strongly encouraged reason and pursuing truth and was the biggest sponsor of astronomy, this is just basic NORMAL history.

      Everything that led up to the scientific revolution would’ve most certainly been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to most atheists.

      If I’m wrong then why don’t the fools cite valid historical sources or name just ONE civilization in all of pre-science human history that came up with an advanced astronomical model without a religion causing them to?

      The fools (atheists) believe that people would intensely study astronomy and philosophy for no reason after gaining food, water, and shelter even though it never happened even ONE time in all of human history, LOL!

      If that’s true how come in modern times still many scientists have difficulties finding jobs because there’s no NEED for them? Farmers on the other hand have no difficulty gaining money because food is something that humans NEED that’s always in demand.

      Many people in science fields have difficulties finding any type of job because there’s no NEED for them.

      Since the media is so well-controlled by atheists and anti-religious people of course the media won’t say anything negative about China, a primitive atheist society, perhaps the very most primitive civilization in terms of life expectancy.

      Life Expectancy in the year 1960 (a few decades ago):
      – Switzerland (the 1st or 2nd most religious Western country): 71
      – China (an atheist country): 43

      Source: World Bank

      During the so-called “Dark Ages” (The Middle Ages) Europe already had a higher life expectancy than China did until the late 1950s, LOL!

      Medieval Europe had a very high life expectancy (around 35-42) higher than the Roman Empire, China, and many other civilizations.

      The Middle Ages (the so-called Dark Ages) might have been the very brightest time-period in all of pre-Modern history!

      Many civilizations had higher life expectancies than China, including some Native American and African tribes, the Greeks, Egyptians, and even the Roman Empire.

      Lies in the media about China:
      – The saying “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime” didn’t come from China and cannot be found in any Chinese text it came from a 19th century British book
      – Pizza didn’t come from China, it came from Greece, it’s merely a myth that it came from Marco Polo after he visited China
      – Chinese had a significantly lower life expectancy than most other civilizations did, even lower than the Roman Empire’s life expectancy of 28

      When you look at Chinese history you can see that they never really achieved anything in terms of life expectancy, a very primitive civilization in terms of life expectancy.

      The elite in China (who had food and water and died of natural causes) didn’t live long at all:
      Gaozu – natural death age 68 or 69, after overthrow
      Taizong – natural death age 50
      Gaozong – natural death age 55
      Ruizong – natural death age 54, after overthrow
      Xuanzong – natural death aged 76 after overthrow
      Suzong – natural death aged 51
      Daizong – natural death aged 52
      Dezong – natural death aged 62
      Shunzong – natural death aged 44 or 45 after overthrow
      Muzong – natural death aged 28 or 29
      Wenzong – natural death aged 30
      Wuzong – natural death aged 31
      Xuanzong – natural death aged 49
      Yizong – natural death aged 39

      Now that’s what you call a primitive civilization, always far behind almost every other civilization in terms of life expectancy.

      Many Native American and African tribes had higher life expectancies than China…they had better methods, medical practices, and diets for survival and life expectancy than the Chinese did.

      Modern science has proven that Chinese medical practices are just junk and don’t work at all.

      I haven’t heard anything negative about China in the atheist-controlled media, atheists are nothing more than savages, animals, untrustables, untouchables…always trying to force and impose their way and their beliefs onto the world.

      In modern times the Christianized Caribbean countries like Barbados have higher life expectancies than China does….James Sisnett from Barbados is the 13th oldest verified male, died at age 113, but there’s never been any males or females from China on the top 50 oldest verified people list even though China has an extremely high population above 1300 million and Barbados has an extremely extremely low population of less than 300,000.

      In a population size as extremely high as China’s (more than 1357 million) just by chance there could be someone smart, long-lived, talented, etc…since it’s just 1 out of 1357 million.

      Why don’t atheists just go home and live the same way as chimpanzees and gorillas do?

      Atheists are always there trying to force and impose their ways and their fictional delusional beliefs onto the entire world.

      I just don’t understand why any atheist would even participate in science since they view it as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time, the same as religion!

      Just look at what the atheists have done after they took over science, they turned it into a laughable popularity contest where authority and incredulity matters more than empirical observations and valid reasoning

      We could have used science to turn the world into a utopia but as long as atheists are prevalent there’s always going to be that big block on human progress….atheist scientists are focusing on stupid things like the String Theory, an empirically untestable mathematical model that matches the definition of pseudoscience but since authority and incredulity matters more than valid reasoning the fools consider it as science .

      I warned my atheist friends about the possibility of a food crisis in the 2030s-2040s but they just ignored me since they view science as just philosophical nonsense and a waste of time. But I’m preparing for it by generating and growing my own food, since I have a need to know science and the truth unlike atheists.

      It’s predicted that by the year 2030 we’ll need produce 50%-70% more food!

      If the world population goes up to 10 billion a food crisis guaranteed!

      Basically every atheist hates reasoning, science and logic viewing nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time….why be inquisitive or use reasoning for? You just need food, water, and shelter for survival.

      That’s the attitude and mentality that atheists have.

      It’s that same mentality and attitude atheists have, to just live backwards or spread lies thoroughly debunked by historians.

      I just don’t know how you can believe in science and be an atheist unless you’re just really biased towards atheism.

      It’s pretty funny to talk to atheists the majority are completely unaware of basic history and still cite junk from cartoon shows and atheist blog sites about the “Dark Ages” LOL!

      People have to realize that if the atheistic/agnostic/non-religious population goes up high enough that science will either naturally go into disuse or be exterminated and people will revert to the state of animal, just like gorillas and chimpanzees!

      I view atheists as subhuman beings and hope that they die, always there threatening human progress and holding us back, and spreading lies.

      As long as atheists and anti-religious people are running things there’s always going to be that big block on human progress.

      • Truie / Oct 21 2015 10:23 pm

        How about you shut the fuck up all this religion shit is pissing me off you guys either worship multiple entities or just one and you religious people are always fighting wars believe in my God or die even if you don’t do that oh you don’t believe in God go to hell or you are going to hell when you die fucking humans I swear every human being always fighting for dominance why can’t we all be in unison like robots United working all together or even ants are better than us.

      • Truie / Oct 21 2015 10:28 pm

        I must agree with you for one thing science was based on religion but to prove it was wrong in every way it can so far.

      • DaTruth / Jun 29 2017 1:04 pm

        hey there denialist/delusionist/antirealist, you are a joke.

  222. Anonymous / Apr 23 2015 1:07 am

    Fuck you, davinci was the fastest learner of all time, he was a true genius, and who do you think you are judging some of the smartest man alive? You’re probroably a 600 pound nerd on a computer your mom bought

  223. joshua walker / Apr 20 2015 3:25 am

    Most retarded article I have ever read. You are only correct about one of the, Stephen Hawking. Edward Witten is regarded as the greatest living physicist in the physics community. Albert Einstein is universally recognized as the greatest scientist in history both by the public and the scientific community. You say he borrowed many ideas from Faraday. This shows me that you do not know science at all. He borrowed nothing from Faraday.

    • Donivan / Jun 10 2015 7:58 am

      What the hell are you blabbering on about? I can’t tell if your a troll or just ignorant. Believe what ever you want to believe if that makes you happy, but not everybody can do that so easily. Plenty of people prefer their beliefs to be tested and proven before they can allow themselves to believe them and that’s just something that’s hardwired into their brain.

    • John P / Jul 31 2016 5:30 am

      William Kingdon Clifford anticipated Einstein

      And Newton is universal ply recognized as the greatest scientist in history

  224. Smith / Apr 18 2015 8:32 am

    William James Sidis:

    Read the chapter in the book below that discusses the life of Sidis and tell me about how you would have been able to cope with what he was exposed to. My take is that he realized there was a dark side to humanity and he rejected all of humanity in the end. Who knows what he could have accomplished if not exposed to psychotic parents that tied him to a chair?

    Book: Raw Deal: Horrible and Ironic Stories of Forgotten Americans

  225. smegma4lyfebro / Apr 16 2015 9:12 pm

    Where to begin? First, IQ is not the be-all, end-all measurement of intelligence. Second, how the hell would you even begin to assess the IQ of people who have been dead for a century or more? Third, failure of inventions does not automatically lower someone’s IQ. You should realize that you are examining historical figures through the eyes of a moderately educated 21st century person. I say moderately because apparently you doesn’t understand the first thing about context or objective writing. I realize that this list is mostly opinion, but it’s chock-full of bias and faulty/inadequate comparisons. Your writing leaves a lot to be desired. You harp on tired phrases and point out that the media ignores all of the ‘true’ geniuses. Yeah fucking right.
    So in summary, IQ does not equal intelligence, lack of “contribution” does not diminish intelligence, labeling so-called geniuses “overrated” is a moronic endeavor that any thinking person would find distasteful and your writing sucks. Have a great day.

  226. So's your face / Apr 7 2015 3:02 am

    Haha brilliant!
    I KNEW there was something bizarre going on here. The article is really badly written and I did detect a bit of a “rant” smell from it.

    Some good points in the article but some serious bitterness too.

    The author is “anti-atheist”?

    • itsnobody / May 7 2015 8:54 pm

      Another fool (atheist) replying to me.

      A real World Without Christianity, Life Expectancy in the year 1960:
      – Switzerland (the 1st or 2nd most religious Western country): 71
      – China (an atheist country): 43


      Why don’t atheists go home and just live the same way as chimpanzees do?

      Why can’t you fools (atheists) handle the historical evidence and consensus that RELIGION directly caused the scientific revolution for?

      The stuff on cartoon shows and the well-controlled atheist-controlled media has been thoroughly debunked by historians…the Church strongly encouraged reason.

      This is just normal history, it’s not controversial or debatable.

      You can contact any historian from any University if you don’t believe me, there was no “Dark Ages” as portrayed in the media.

      The reason why people were studying astronomy in Europe isn’t because as atheists believe “after gaining food, water, and shelter people just spontaneously felt like studying astronomy for no reason” it’s because “after gaining food, water, and shelter the Church NEEDED calendars and clocks so there was a NEED to study astronomy”.

      Everything that led up to the scientific revolution would’ve been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to atheists.

      Atheism is incompatible with reason since atheists view thinking and reasoning as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time, the same as a religion…you need food, water, and shelter for survival not a bunch of thinking and reasoning.

      Why don’t atheists just go home instead of ruining science for?

      Any fool (atheist) can prove me wrong by naming just one civilization in all of pre-science history that came up with an advanced astronomical model without a religion causing them to.

  227. Anonymous / Mar 31 2015 1:32 am

    It’s funny when sheeple are told their dead heroes are also mundane.

  228. Anonymous / Mar 24 2015 10:39 am

    This looks like a religious website that attempts to degrade non-religious, great minds. It is simply full of bullsh*t!

    • itsnobody / Mar 30 2015 11:08 pm

      Foolish (atheistic).

      I’ve already proven that science wouldn’t exist without religion, as the historical consensus and evidence tells us, it’s just because of the atheist-controlled media that people think differently.

      I just don’t get how anyone can argue with the historical evidence…obviously since there’s no civilization in all of human history that decided to intensely study astronomy and philosophy after gaining food, water, and shelter without a religion telling them to there wouldn’t be a scientific revolution without religion.

      What we observe from the historical evidence is human beings acting just like other animals without religion…just focusing on food, water, shelter, and survival, not focusing on astronomy (where Newtonian physics comes from) or philosophy (where the scientific method comes from).

      As I explained in my other articles:
      – Humans need food, water, and shelter for survival, not astronomy or philosophy
      – Newtonian physics is an advanced astronomical model that came from intensely studying astronomy
      – The scientific method is a form of logical empiricism that came from intensely studying philosophy
      – In all of pre-science human history not one civilization decided to intensely study philosophy or astronomy without a religion causing them to
      – So we can be around 100% certain that there would be no scientific revolution without religion

      The biggest block to human progress has always been the atheists. If it was up to them they would exterminate science viewing it as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time, the same as a religion, and we’d just be living the same as gorillas and chimpanzees, just focusing on food, water, shelter, and basic survival.

      Atheists hate reasoning, science, or logic…they just view it as philosophical nonsense and a waste of time.

      If civilizations spontaneously decide to intensely study astronomy and philosophy for no reason as many atheists believe how come that never happened in all of human history?

      Any atheist could prove me wrong by pointing out examples in history where a civilization “after gaining food, water, and shelter spontaneously just felt like intensely studying astronomy and philosophy for no reason”…lol they can’t, they are just mad that they are wrong and historians have debunked their nonsense.

      Where’s the example? I’m still waiting, lol.

      Everything that led up to the scientific revolution (intensely studying astronomy and philosophy) would’ve most certainly just been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to atheists.

      What a big block atheism and non-religion has been on human progress, just imagine how far science and technology would’ve been if atheists hadn’t taken over in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

      I explained in more detail in my other posts:

      One thing can be 100% certain to the highest degree, that atheists block human progress, hold back science, threaten technology, and pose the greatest threat to mankind as all of the historical and scientific evidence shows us.

      Estonia (the most atheistic country in the entire world) has 0 Nobel prizes in science.
      Switzerland and Austria (the most religious Western European countries) have the 1st and 2nd most Nobel prizes in science per capita.

      If it was up to atheists we’d just be living backwards with trees and grass, no technology, no science, just the same as other animals.

      A World Without Religion, Life Expectancy data from the year 1960 (just a few decades ago):
      – Switzerland (the most religious Western country): 71
      – China (an atheist country): 43


      Why can’t atheists just go home and stop doing science? They can focus on living the same way that gorillas and chimpanzees do.

      • anyone reasonable / Apr 8 2015 3:25 pm

        You’re pretty ridiculous

      • anyone reasonable / Apr 8 2015 3:27 pm

        And if this was a joke you took it too far

      • Kato Kaelin / Apr 12 2015 12:47 am

        Wow you typed alot there. Not sure what it’s about but I DO know it is alot of words. Good thing there’s so much valid information on the internet I don’t even have to see what you said! Have a good day everybody!

      • Ace / Jun 8 2015 9:32 pm

        Your name says it all. “Nobody” could be this ignorant and biased without using a crazy religious background to try to justify their argument. My God, get a life (pun intended).

      • IQ 350 / Nov 14 2016 1:31 pm

        Very interesting, so which branch of religion (there are hundreds) made the biggest contribution to science?

  229. Anonymous / Mar 23 2015 12:19 am

    This is bullshit

  230. Anonymous / Mar 20 2015 12:55 am

    Who would make a fucking list like this. Cringe worthy.

  231. anurag ramachandran / Mar 13 2015 7:55 am

    My IQ is 198 and supposed to be around 200.

    • Nuke / Mar 14 2015 4:58 am

      Your statement contains redundancy. I would have thought that a genius like you would have noticed that, and corrected it before posting.

      • Anonymous / Mar 19 2015 2:12 pm

        He/she is a genius really picky with precision. For him/her 198 may not be “around enough” of 200. Current people like us cannot understand this 😉

  232. Anonymous / Mar 5 2015 5:06 pm

    since u seem to have so much to judge about genius, how about you get your IQ taken so that we may judge whether your opinion is worth a pin.And what have you yourself invented that you have become judge to these.come on men

    • Anonymous / Mar 5 2015 5:28 pm

      You do not need to be a genius to judge if someone else is one, or not. It is like being able to tell that someone, Shakespeare for example, is a great writer even though you could not write better than Shakespeare yourself, and that G B Shaw is a lesser writer than Shakespeare even though you could not even write as well as Shaw.

      • Anonymous / Apr 18 2015 11:38 pm

        Although some points are true (and some plain stupid), your idea of what a genius should be, the consideration that mathematical genius is the only type of genius and the importance you give to IQ messures is childish at best.

  233. Dani / Mar 1 2015 9:56 am

    You constantly claim that certain people were not praised or recognized by society. I agree, expecially regarding Nikola Tesla. However, you then go on to shame people such as Stephen Hawking for having been praised and recognized. Are you saying it is better to be ignored than to be celebrated for tremendous accomplishments? I’m sure if Nikola Tesla had received recognition, you would have put him on this list as well, simply for the fact that his genius was recognized. Also, you somehow think you know better than those who decide the Nobel prizes…

  234. mattias / Feb 23 2015 12:03 pm

    if anyone has been able to get past their feeling sorry his disability while reading his work, people would know how stupid hawkins really is. here is one of his quotes “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn’t need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own,”

    it is filled with fallacies. I don;t know why anyone takes him seriously, except for the fact that he is strongly anti christian and has a disability. if any other made such a statement they would be ridiculed for the flaws. but because its hawkins its somehow genius right?

    • Dani / Mar 1 2015 9:23 am

      First of all, that quote is out of context which means Hawking does indeed go into further explanation of what he means by this. Also, the science and mathematics behind this statement are not easily understood by someone without a PHD in Physics, so when publishing something that it to be read by the general public, he did have to “Dumb it down”. Finally, you are simply upset by the fact that Hawking disproves the need for a god. He was an atheist. If we are to shame every person who comes about giving reasonable scientific atheistic explenations, then we are pretty much calling any person without religion “Overrated”. Most of science constantly contradicts what is said in the bible, but that doesn’t make it dumb, especially when there is brilliance behind the statement such as that which Hawking provides.

    • Dani / Mar 1 2015 9:25 am

      Also, learn to spell his name, before you act like you actually know anything about his science.

      • Steve Mankins / Mar 17 2015 8:09 pm

        Dani, Stephen Hawkings is a smart man, but he also tries to marry brilliant math to bad philosophy. His book The Grand Design was largely scoffed at, in a polite manner, by the physicist community at large. His philosophical view on metaphysics and nature seems as religious as those who would try to start their own faith. Make no mistake, The Grand Design is a book that can only be taken as a jest, or as a work of philosophy.

  235. Paul Bovino / Feb 11 2015 1:59 am

    Da Vinci’s concepts and subsequent designs never reached the actualization stage because the technology didn’t yet exist to build them. I could go into this writer’s other seriously flawed concepts, but people like this, who use what brain power they have – or have left, against themselves, and with no apparent purpose other than to irritate, aren’t worth the time.

  236. Anonymous / Feb 9 2015 2:17 am

    the clowned that wrote this needs be dragged into the streets exiled from society. What a hater – writes a crappy article and hates on davince and other great minds. Calling gates overrated as he sits and writes from his windows pc. For you sake keep your identity hidden. Don’t show people the idiotic face that wrote this.

    • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:14 am

      Da Vinci, not davince

    • Nuke / Feb 20 2015 7:41 am

      If you know much about Gates you would realise that he is/was a businessman, a shady one at that, not an inventor, let alone a genius. Try this :

      Here is what Steve Jobs said about him : “Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology”. Gates bought DOS from Seattle Computer Products, stole the basics of Windows NT/XP from DEC, copied the Windows interface from Apple, exploited his monopoly illegally, and got rich by forcing everyone who bought a PC to pay him something.

      BTW, I am typing this on a PC which has evolved from the original design invented by IBM, using Firefox on Linux – Gates is not involved.

      • Brandon Li / Feb 26 2015 11:51 am

        Reading all of this was worth it just to find your comment. Loved the Bill “The Cat” Gates myths page as it is nice to see it all in one place and I saved it 🙂
        On the other hand I’m pretty sure that “The Gator” isn’t going to friend you on Farcebook anytime soon ;-)))

  237. Anonymous / Feb 7 2015 11:15 pm

    This is nonsense, total and utter nonsense. Give credit to the other people listed if you think is right, but don’t denigrate the reputation of truly amazing men. Your contribution to humanity is diminished severely by this idiotic peace, mind you. Donkey of the year award, that’s what you deserve.

  238. Anonymous / Feb 3 2015 7:30 pm

    Mozart’s IQ and Einstein’s IQ are estimated to be about the same. And Leonardo, did not have any concept of how to fly, he simply just made some of the main bodies and ideas. 🙂
    Such as a helicopter. (Obviously didn’t work, see Wright Brothers)

    However some of these other people I agree with. But to be a genius, you don’t need to contribute to the community.

    Don’t know why I am here. All its showing is how many brain cells I must be losing every day.

  239. Anonymous / Jan 31 2015 10:40 am

    Einstein was not a mathematician??? Please review his contributions again. His Browninan movement contribution (which allowed to prove the atomist hypothesis) was purely about mathematics. Review also his work in Einstein’s manifolds (just to mention one). A mathematician is someone who contributed to expand the knowledge in mathematics (as far as I know). What happened then? Why does he have that amount of MAJOR contributions, was he always lucky and stealing the other’s ideas? Was he lucky with the General Relativity, with the Browninan movement and with the photoelectric effect (which gave him the Nobel Prize)????????. Just considering that he can be lucky that many times sounds actually really stupid. Besides, I didn’t know that in order to make an original contribution you have to start from zero and you cannot use previous work. Please, be a bit more rigorous before judging someone like Einstein.

    You should rather consider Aristotile in this list. All what he did was WRONG (his gravity theory was bullshit and his work in physics absolutely crap). His only contribution was his work in logics, which wasn’t really impressive. What is the merit of being wrong in everything?

    • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:10 am

      You have a wrong idea on Einstein and Maths: the maths used at his theories of relativity are not really complex and he got the Nobel Prize for Physics (there is no Nobel Prize for Maths). He knew them all-right and his geniailty consists in having both the reason and the creativity to come up with his theories.

    • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:12 am

      PS: He was Aristotle, not Aristotile

      • Anonymous / Feb 10 2015 9:40 am

        Hi Martha, thanks for your comments, but I am a theoretical mathematician and a physicist too, and I am pretty sure that I know what Einstein did and what Riemann geometry is (the mathematics of general relativity, for those who doesn’t know). Maybe Riemann geometry seems easy to you, because you even don’t know what it is about. But I can guarantee you that just a few pople in the world can understand it (and Einstein admitted that it took 10 years to him). Besides, I wasn’t talking about the mathematics of General Relativity before (it wasn’t Einstein’s contribution) but about the Brownian movement (it was Einstein’s contribution),

  240. Clark / Jan 21 2015 12:17 pm

    These things needed to be said.
    Our heros are not perfect,
    We can’t all be Newton.

  241. John Rhea / Jan 19 2015 4:47 am

    This most earnest author sounds like many scientists one encounters: confident in his education, near-obsessive about IQ, and contemptious of the celebrity-level cults of personality that ignorant laymen have created for certain scientists. To be sure, his ire, justified or not, appears to be fueled mostly by a given figure’s perceived celebrity. Kudos for making a thoughtful list and not being afraid of PC backlash (Hawking comes to mind). Demerits for being jealous. Yes, you’re smart and educated. Yes, you understand better than many true scientific greatness. Perhaps you might marvel more that scientists are now more appreciated than at any point in human history. We laymen are at least starting to get it.

    P.S. Ben Franklin was a omnivorously-interested renaissance man. Not a scientist. And he never claimed otherwise.

    Best regards

    • Justice Starcatcher / Jan 26 2015 12:04 pm

      Try re-reading. It was clear to me he was the opposite of IQ obsessed. Indeed, I noticed a true disdain by the author for IQ as a metric. But, THE MEDIA is IQ obsessed forcing him to use that metric for his rebuttals.

      P.S. This wasn’t a rebuttal on the accomplishments of Ben Franklin. Just the exaggeration of his status as a scientific genius. As a GREAT MAN, his accomplishments speak for themselves. Statesman, Inventor, Founding Father, Business man, Publisher etc.

    • Nuke / Feb 26 2015 8:48 am

      John Rhea wrote :- “Perhaps you might marvel more that scientists are now more appreciated than at any point in human history”

      I am afraid that is not true. Science was in high regard back in Victorian times, with the industrial revolution and then the flow of inventions and discovery of scientific facts like photography, radio and evolution. Then there was another period of appreciating science from about 1940-1965 when the contribution to the war effort was recognised, and other technical advances followed (and were welcomed) in medicine, electronics and nuclear physics.

      However from the 60’s there was a reaction shown first in the “Flower Power” movement (wherein it was thought that problems could be solved by tossing flowers around) and people started associating science and technology with war, in particular nuclear war. Today, although people use technology like mobile phones, they actually hate the details – that is why Apple’s iThings (which have set a general style) are made in a way thay you cannot dismantle or repair them or see how they are made (it’s a selling point – people do not even want to be able to change a battery) and the engineers who design them (I mean design the internals, not the exterior) are regarded as the lowest dregs of society, the manufacture being banished to the other side of the World. People want wind generators rather than nuclear power stations basically because they think the latter involve too much science. Similarly, it accounts for the rise in popularity of creationism as opposed to the theory evolution.

      Try telling a girl at a party that you design electronics; once she might have admired you as a “boffin” but these days she will turn away to find a PR executive instead.

      • Iceberg / Feb 26 2015 1:05 pm

        The problem is many scientists have been caught lying, especially about climate chage and other things where amounts of money are involved. They also over-sell evolution as fact, which is untrue again. Fact is today if they are offered enough cash, they’ll write a paper proving almost anything, ‘massaging’ data, fixing surveys, using false models etc. as they know only the popular papers get the big funding. Why should anyone increase their respect for scientists when this is the case?

  242. Anonymous / Jan 16 2015 6:30 pm

    Seriously? Einstein???????

  243. gh3 / Jan 16 2015 1:56 pm

    who ever did this is just a hater mehn….

  244. Gels / Jan 2 2015 4:13 pm

    Anyone who believes in black holes is an idiot.

  245. pby / Dec 19 2014 4:19 pm

    Dear Author haters

    The author bashes no genius whether overrated or underrated in the blog, but bashes the ‘overraters’ and ‘underraters'(generally you and me) hence bashing him seems entirely unecessary.

    Yours truly

    A passerby

  246. Howard Lee / Dec 17 2014 5:06 pm

    One could say the same thing about any other famous person in history. Darwin,Aristotle,Nietzche etc. Their talent was probably vastly overrated like the paintings of Van Gogh or the music of Elivs Presley.
    As for determining IQ of someone like Da Vinci that is more a matter of debate as I seriously
    doubt there were any standard IQ tests back then.
    So determining his IQ is more theoretical than factual.

    Also IQ tests in my opinion are not an indicator of intelligence or shouldn’t be.
    They don’t really measure all aspects of intelligence.
    I doubt it measures basic common sense for one thing, which should be an indicator of
    how smart someone really is.
    Being a genius in a certain field basically means you’re exceptional in that one area but
    not necessarily smart in everything else.
    So the term genius may be an overrated misused and exaggerated term to begin with.

  247. Ane Eubanks / Dec 10 2014 8:40 pm

    OMG! What about Nikolas Tesla! He was the person that contributed more to the world of mankind.

    • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:17 am

      The author mentioned him as one of the forgotten geniuses. That’s why Tesla can’t be on a list of Overrated Geniuses

  248. Anonymous / Dec 10 2014 8:23 pm

    You quoting Da Vinci was actually highly hypocritical.

    • Reynaldo Martinez / Jan 29 2015 3:55 am

      Stating that Da Vinci is overrated does not diminishes an intelligent argument. Da Vinci made an intelligent argument and I believe he was right, doesn’t mean he wasn’t overrated. Credit given where it’s due.

  249. Kevin Carl Diaz Jardiolin / Dec 9 2014 10:28 am

    I would like to suggest to you that you should research more about their biography.. as far as i know bill gates, stopped his college because he find it boring since he already knew much of the things they are learning in school… bill gates is a bookworm.. he did not invent the computer, but he did invent the microsoft OS or MS DOS along with paul allen… I don’t think these scientists are overrated, you’ve just got to learn more about them.

    • Anonymous / Feb 2 2015 6:08 pm


    • Nuke / Feb 20 2015 8:01 am

      Jardiolin wrote : “you should research more about their biography … gates … did invent the microsoft OS or MS DOS”

      Is that a joke ? Gates himself does not even claim that. You are the one who needs to do some research and I suggest you start by reading Gates’ book, “The Road Ahead”, Chapter 3. DOS (first called QDOS and then 86-DOS) was written by Tim Patterson at Seattle Computer Products (SCP) for a personal computer kit they sold. Microsoft bought 86-DOS from SCP and also hired Patterson to port it to the IBM PC, where it was renamed as PC-DOS (or MS-DOS if sold separately).

      More here :-

  250. J / Dec 9 2014 5:09 am

    And another thing these people have contributed a lot more to society and broken more scientific ground then you but you still find the time to write a blog about how much they suck in the immortal words of Stephanie tanner “how rude”

  251. J / Dec 8 2014 9:41 pm

    Also Michael faraday the person u reference more than once as a true behind the scenes genius barely knew algebra so I don’t think his iq would be considered that high. Even though he was ground breaking

    • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:20 am

      Farady had no formal education, but he DID understan algebra. The fact that he did all what he did without being at school, just points out his very-high IQ

      • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:21 am

        Faraday and understand

  252. J / Dec 8 2014 9:25 pm

    Iq tests are not a measure of intellect just a measure of how well you take an iq test

    • Anonymous / Dec 30 2014 9:58 am

      true true

      • Anonymous / Dec 30 2014 10:00 am

        i agree, your test score shows nothing but how well u take a test
        you got it dude ?-michelle tanner

  253. / Dec 8 2014 6:27 am

    Simply desire to say your article is as astounding.

    The clearness in your post is just nice and i could assume
    you’re an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grab your feed to keep
    updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please carry on the enjoyable work.

  254. etyd / Dec 8 2014 1:49 am

    I have an IQ of 140,and you said that Leonardo had IQ between 130 to 140,
    It is NOT possible that i am smarter than him,Leonardo’s IQ is around 240.
    He Invented the Machine gun,Glider,Tank, and more,He also was an artist,Doctor,philosopher and many more,How dare you to say these things about him?

    • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:23 am

      Honey, maybe you DON’T have an IQ of 140… consider retaking the test 😉

  255. Tallman Miller / Dec 4 2014 11:54 pm

    There are a lot of open questions about your rating system, which makes your ratings somewhat suspect. I certainly agree with your including Watson, Ben Franklin and Edison in this list, some of the others are questionable. Edison was clearly not a genius, and Watson had a tested IQ of about 120, I would have included Galileo on the list. He had one stroke of inspiration, but couldn’t be bothered to offer any valid proof, aside from the fact he had seen the planets through a microscope. Kepler, who had just proved the orbit or Mars, had sufficient proof to perhaps impress ever Cardinal Bellarmine, but Galileo wouldn’t use them because he was too vain. It might also clarify your thinking if you would include a list of geniuses who are underrated.

  256. Anonymous / Nov 27 2014 11:35 pm

    I think that you need to get your facts straight because most people in this list have an IQ higher that 160 which is the IQ of a genius. One doesn’t need to learn fast to have a high IQ the way a person is measured in intelligence depends of their capacity to find various solutions to a problem. This list proves how ignorant people are to not see how making any fine art takes great brains because you have to think outside the box, Leonardo davinci didn’t paint the monalisa over a night if u think coming up with such masterpiece makes him a genius then you clearly do not appreciate art. I dare you to go ahead and paint a masterpiece so you can relize how hard it is to cone up with an idea to paint. Also if you don’t think Einstein is a genius come up with your own theory, also it takes lots of brains to figure out how to program a system to function properly. I suggest if you think they are so overrated that you come up with the inventions, theories and the art they made.

    • Anon. / Nov 28 2014 8:26 pm

      Learn proper grammar, then you’ll be able to be measured with less stupidity, and your responses will be taken seriously, how about you go watch some T.V. and practicing typing like an adult and not a teenager, most of these people ARE over-rated you’re just to sheepish to understand, Einstein said himself he “worked up the foundations laid upon for him to improve”, most of his work was already thought up just ill completed he WAS brilliant is improving, not so much creating, he tried to invent a refrigerator, that was beaten out by more efficient ones, and also being a really good artist does not make you a genius, it makes you skilled and creative, NOT A GENIUS. Michio Kaku is a complete idiot, Stephen Hawking IS over-rated, and I agree with maybe about 75% of this article. Stop trying to defend smart people, when you yourself are dumb.

      • J / Dec 9 2014 5:13 am

        Your a hateful little bitch who can’t think strait

      • Anonymous / Mar 12 2015 4:15 pm

        “Learn proper grammar…”

        You could start yourself by not using run-on sentences, or commas as periods.

  257. Anonymous / Nov 27 2014 12:44 pm

    Ive put my shoes on the wrong feet 😦

  258. Duncan Meech / Nov 26 2014 12:08 pm

    if only the rest of us non-geniuses could have a year like Einstein’s annus mirabilis we probably wouldn’t even need anymore geniuses.

  259. 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.

  260. James / Nov 11 2014 5:11 pm

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

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

    You fail on many counts.

  262. 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.

    • Anon. / Nov 28 2014 8:29 pm

      There’s the proper argument. Good job.

    • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:28 am

      He did not base his list on IQ; he was just making an argument against those who claim Da Vinci had an IQ of 200+, Why does people read but don’t quite understand what is written?

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

    The blogger is surely an underrated Arse.

    • So's your face / Apr 7 2015 3:09 am

      Are you an angry American teenager who was brought up a christian but who has family issues?

      Coz that’s the vibe you’re giving off…

  264. Anonymous / Oct 17 2014 8:10 am

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

  265. 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!

  266. 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

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

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

  268. 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.

  269. 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……………………

  270. 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.

  271. 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.

  272. 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.

  273. / 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!

  274. 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.

    • Tallman Miller / Dec 5 2014 12:11 am

      So not having a university degree would disqualify a person from having a high IQ? You didn’t think that one through. Darwins genius was not only the discovery of the concept of natural selection, but the ability to articulate it and write it down clearly and completely. It is not only concise for so vast a theory, but is remarkable for the fact that he was able to think it through in such a way that, to this day more than 150 years later, no important parts of it have been completely refuted. We have discovered some parts that are incorrect in detail, but not in the theory itself. Natural selection stands as one of the greatest contributions of all ltime to the biological sciences.

    • J / Dec 9 2014 5:30 am

      I hate people who read books and think there smart they always remind me of the bar scene in good will hunting with the jerk who just plagiarizes the people he read but doesn’t have his own original thoughts

      Quit regurgitating

    • Kevin Carl Diaz Jardiolin / Dec 9 2014 10:32 am

      True idiots are those who are book dependent …

  275. 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.

  276. 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.

  277. 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.

  278. 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.

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

  280. 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.

  281. 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

  282. 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!

  283. 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

  284. 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.

    • Tallman Miller / Dec 5 2014 12:17 am

      You do have something to say, but clearly you have not done your research. Edison was no scientist. At best you could say he was an inventor, although most of his inventions were the work of others. He was certainly a great entrepreneur so maybe that might qualify him. He was also a great litigator, always in court for using other people’s genius to make money.

  285. 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?

  286. fzBap / Jul 29 2014 6:29 am

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

  287. 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.

  288. 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.

  289. 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.

  290. 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.

  291. Anonymous / Jul 21 2014 1:08 pm

    This is the most retarded list ever

  292. 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

  293. 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.

  294. 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.

  295. 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.

  296. 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

  297. 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

  298. Anonymous / Jul 8 2014 10:11 pm

    Now, let me tell you why this list is bs

  299. Anonymous / Jul 8 2014 7:55 pm

    Author is the most underrated moron

  300. Anonymous / Jul 5 2014 1:31 pm

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

  301. 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.

    • John P / Jul 31 2016 5:45 am

      Roger Bacon came up,with the same inventions before Da Vinci

  302. Anonymous / Jul 4 2014 3:04 pm

    Stupidest shit I have ever read

  303. 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

  304. 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.

  305. 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.

  306. 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!

  307. 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.

  308. 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.

  309. 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.

    • John Rhea / Jan 19 2015 5:20 am

      Notice that a favorite indictment of yours is “undergrad”. Your a scientist aren’t you? Proud of your degrees? Worked hard to earn them? Dismissive of those without them? Careful, sir. Don’t fall victim to temptation of linking your self-esteem to your earned credentials. Doing so often becomes apparent to others and can weaken the perception of your words, however sound they may be. After all, and I’m sure you would agree, some of the most asinine statements a person is likely to hear often come from the mouths of scientists with superiority complexes.

  310. 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…

  311. 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).

  312. 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!!

  313. 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!

  314. 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!

  315. 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

  316. Kiddy / Jun 1 2014 6:34 am

    You do make some good points however!!!

  317. 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!!!

  318. 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)…..

  319. 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.

  320. 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.

  321. 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

  322. 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.

  323. 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?

  324. 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.

  325. Anonymous / May 8 2014 5:54 pm

    Whoever wrote this is an idiot

  326. 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)

    • Anonymous / Aug 5 2015 6:58 pm

      I wouldn’t agree with stating that bringing physics to the public in, more so laymen terms, a waste of time, since it might inspire and be the base of knowledge for future great minds. Mind you, the human mind needs some outer factors to spark an interest in a field, especially a complex one, as is physics.
      The person who wrote this article, though, is an uneducated ingrate, who clearly doesn’t even comprehend the work of these “overrated” brilliant minds and is just set on gaining ad revenue off asinine conjectures.

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

    Well, it sounds like someone has some jealousy going on

  328. 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

    • Ahmet Birsen / Dec 14 2015 12:02 pm

      Agreed that Edison is responsable for so many inventions other than light bulb, he is certainly not overrated.

      • John P / Jul 31 2016 5:49 am

        Joseph Swan invented the lightbulb

  329. Anonymous / Apr 24 2014 9:24 am

    the author is either a troll or a dumbfuck

  330. 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.

    • Actually Satan / Mar 6 2016 5:49 pm

      You’re pretty damn stupid if you think that. Especially since most would. You’re just looking at a couple of them.

  331. 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.

  332. Anonymous / Apr 13 2014 1:20 pm

    Arrogant fool.

  333. 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.

  334. asdf / Apr 6 2014 2:05 pm

    Why are my comments not showing up?

  335. 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.

  336. 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.

  337. 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


        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.

  338. 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
    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

      • xenotypos / Sep 9 2017 11:30 am

        Half of his fame comes from the fact that he wrote in English and he’s the best in the English language. Wake up.

        Creativity and arts in general are hardly quantifiable anyway. Classifying this kind of person is a bit stupid.

  339. 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

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

    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
    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

    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)

    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

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

    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.

    • John P / Jul 31 2016 5:53 am

      Lol! No Paul Dirac, Michael Farady or Alan Turing

  340. 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.

  341. Anonymous / Mar 9 2014 4:50 pm


  342. 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.

  343. 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.

    • Ahmet Birsen / Dec 14 2015 12:13 pm

      Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell ??? I would add Heinrich Hertz and Karl Ferdinand Braun these two German Nobel prize winners have revolutionized the electric and electronic technology we have today including Radar and TV ..

  344. 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.

  345. 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? 😛 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

  346. Anonymous / Mar 7 2014 9:41 pm


  347. Anonymous / Mar 7 2014 7:53 pm

    Bland repettative writing

  348. Anonymous / Mar 5 2014 10:20 pm


  349. 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

  350. 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.

  351. 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.

  352. 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.

  353. Anonymous / Mar 3 2014 2:09 pm

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

  354. Anonymous / Mar 2 2014 6:21 pm

    is the writer itsnobody a retard?

  355. Anonymous / Mar 2 2014 6:17 pm

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

  356. 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!

  357. 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.

  358. Anonymous / Feb 27 2014 8:21 pm

    I hope the writer cuts his hands off

  359. 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.

  360. 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’

  361. 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

  362. 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.

    • John P / Jul 31 2016 5:56 am

      William Kingdon Clifford anticipated Einstein

  363. 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.

  364. 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?

    • John P / Jul 31 2016 5:57 am

      William Kingdon Clifford too

  365. 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.

  366. 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!

  367. 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.

  368. 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?

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

    the person who wrote this article is a complete retard.

  370. 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.

  371. 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.

  372. Anonymous / Feb 17 2014 4:40 pm

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

  373. 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…

  374. 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.

  375. 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.

  376. 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.

  377. Anonymous / Feb 9 2014 7:27 pm

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

  378. 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…

  379. 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.

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

    what is the fastest ram available for desktop computers

  381. 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.

  382. 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

  383. 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.

  384. Anonymous / Jan 21 2014 4:09 pm

    Absolute garbage of a post.

  385. 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.

  386. 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.

  387. 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.

  388. 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.
        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.
        a person having such capacity.
        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.
        natural ability or capacity; strong inclination: a special genius for leadership. Synonyms: gift, talent, aptitude, faculty, endowment, predilection; penchant, knack, bent, flair, wizardry.
        distinctive character or spirit, as of a nation, period, or language.” –

        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?

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

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

  390. 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

  391. 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.”

  392. indiecat379 / Jan 4 2014 7:50 am

    you’re nobody

  393. Anonymous / Jan 2 2014 2:08 pm

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

  394. 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

  395. 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.

  396. 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.

  397. 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 ?

  398. 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..

    • 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.

  399. 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..

    • 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.

  400. 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.

  401. Tone / Dec 26 2013 1:39 am

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

  402. 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.

  403. 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.

  404. 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

  405. Derp / Dec 21 2013 4:50 pm

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

  406. 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

  407. 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.

  408. 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.

  409. / Dec 18 2013 9:16 pm

    At Joe request, dress casual, no flowers please.

  410. / Dec 16 2013 8:43 pm

    Damn Valentine’s Day..

  411. 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….

  412. 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….

  413. Hazel / Dec 8 2013 12:04 am

    I think you forgot to include yourself on this list
    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

  414. 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.

  415. carlostp11 / Dec 5 2013 9:19 am

    Pron blog site
    best erotic novel vampire erotic erotic graphic novels erotic nudes free prono xxx

  416. 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).

      • barracuda7018 / May 31 2017 2:05 am

        No mate , Newton as a mathematicain was way behind Euler and Gauss.. Go and do some research ..

  417. 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

  418. 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.

  419. 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

  420. 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

  421. 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!

  422. Anonymous / Nov 26 2013 9:50 am

    lol just wasted my time

  423. Anonymous / Nov 25 2013 10:13 am

    got sick man this list was rubbish

  424. 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.

  425. 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


  426. 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

  427. 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.

  428. 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.

  429. 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.

  430. 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 😠😠😠😟

  431. 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).

  432. 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.

  433. 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.

  434. 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

  435. Anonymous / Oct 28 2013 6:36 pm

    You sir… are (at the least) retarted

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

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

  437. 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


  438. 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.

  439. 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.

  440. Anonymous / Oct 24 2013 12:50 pm

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

  441. Nobody / Oct 23 2013 7:05 pm

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

  442. Anonymous / Oct 20 2013 1:40 am


  443. 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

  444. nilesh / Oct 18 2013 3:48 am

    you miss ” richard feynmann ” no ordinarry m

  445. 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.

  446. 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

  447. 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

  448. 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.

  449. marsh / Oct 13 2013 11:03 pm

    Poor, poor article.

  450. 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


  451. 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 and . you know who most genius all the time? ” GOD ” that tittle belong to “GOD”, cheers 😀

    • 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.

  452. 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.

  453. 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.

  454. 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.

  455. 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.

  456. Anonymous / Sep 22 2013 8:20 pm

    lmao whoever wrote this was retarded.

  457. Anonymous / Sep 22 2013 3:24 pm

    You really like the phrase “ignored in the media”

  458. 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

  459. 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.

  460. 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.

  461. 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.

  462. 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

    • Anonymous / Jan 1 2016 6:13 am

      I believe a quote says that “genius is to see what all others have seen, and think what no one else has thought.” Also, by Newton, “I have only seen as far as i have seen by standing on the shoulders of giants.” please correct me if i misquoted, but i believe the gist of it is accurate.

  463. Anonymous / Sep 19 2013 1:05 am

    Whoever wrote this article is a mental midget

  464. john / Sep 18 2013 2:57 pm

    Finally an objective analysis of these lionized celebrities

  465. 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!

  466. Chris