onereaderone Posted February 2, 2013 #26 Share Posted February 2, 2013 ...oh... and did i mention ... this is not one of my better ideas , you do not have a clue you moron , i can eat you for dinner , and drop your tiny brain in the dirt like a stone , step on you... and not notice ... on a good day , i walk the icy altitudes and cloud canyons of dreams in cyan skys your cave dwelling fire only reaches for .... you have not the slightest of clues all the wonders your eyes will never see... when you awaken some day to all you do not know , your questions will not be your starting , seeking to ask the question will be far more than what you might raise to . oh no.. for neoprimitives of your high standing... the use of heat is more than i might hope to see you seek out , your greatness may even lift to such greatness as walls and a roof .... put a red frog on a green rock... and the frog turns green put a red human on a green rock ... AND THE ROCK TURNS RED . this defines the human being ... genius is the man who turns the rock red . genius is the man who sees the world as it can be... not as others demand it is and can be no other way than as it shall always be.... i will not be held back , i will not except things as they are... and what is , is only because i have not gotten around to change it to how i wish it shall be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onereaderone Posted February 2, 2013 #27 Share Posted February 2, 2013 if i spoke to far foreward of my place , may i say in a softer voice . when i have cause , i delight in filling the minds eye with such toys my dreams play with . i can change the way you see the world , and teach the untrained eye to see things that make them tremble like children . a strong man can lift about 300 pounds ... a smart man can move the world . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 2, 2013 #28 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) ... and why? Not that you obliged to answer, but just out of curiosity, why (excluding Higgs, and Jung, and... Poincare, and...)? You get my point. I was rushing there saying that Higgs is genius. I dont know how he figured out what he figured out. I only know that he was walking on mountain when idea strike him. Jung on another hand follow intuition in curing his patients. He didnt know how things work and how he get there he just did. Kant said that Newton wasnt Genius because he was able to explain logicly how he got to his conclusion. Scientists often have conclusion then goes trough logical explaination. Genius dont obesrve to much they just clicked. They have rare insights. They have explaination often dont knowing how they got there but seems that it works. They skip steps. Jung have conclusions which obviously help his patients. Chaos theory and topology father, Poincare is great example.Last universalists.He talked that sub consciousness solve all problems. Attack problems from all directions with consciousness. And then wait when subconsciousness tap your shoulder. He steped out of Bus and problem he thinks for months flashes in front of his eyes. Peers have dificulties to follow his work. One equasion followed by another and peers need many lines between them. And he was Genius. Nasa use poincare to find best orbit. Nasa fist translate his works on English in 1950 when they started satelite programs. He wondered that we can find out from 2D what is 3D object so he wonder can we know from 3d what 4d object look like. This is his quote I like: “The scientist does not study mathematics because it is useful, he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing and life would not be worth living. And it is because simplicity, because grandeur, is beautiful that we preferably seek simple facts, sublime facts, and that we delight now to follow the majestic course of the stars.” Edited February 2, 2013 by the L 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted February 2, 2013 #29 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) [...] “The scientist does not study mathematics because it is useful, he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing and life would not be worth living. And it is because simplicity, because grandeur, is beautiful that we preferably seek simple facts, sublime facts, and that we delight now to follow the majestic course of the stars.” A bit over exaggerated, but there is some logic in it. Edited February 2, 2013 by bmk1245 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 2, 2013 #30 Share Posted February 2, 2013 A bit over exaggerated, but there is some logic in it. I dont see it as exaggerated. Also Fermat was genius too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepulchrave Posted February 2, 2013 #31 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Wow, this thread got weird fast... because the design is scaleable... i can build a linilar actuator the size of a 10 story building or for a nanobot in microns .. with equal ease ... the device is patentable and is also very easy to improve ... and any one that is intrested... it has automotive applications including reactive shock absorbers that flat line a bump in the road... it is also not effected by vaccum or ultra pressure.... I am happy for you that you are so smart and innovative. But please forgive my incredulity: if you have developed plans for an actuator that can easily be built on any scale from a micron to a decameter, why haven't you filed for a patent yet? If you have a patent, it shouldn't be too much trouble to get venture capital interested, or just subcontract out the actual construction and sale of the device. You can learn how to file for a US patent here, and a European patent here. Actually, he knows, and he knows a lot. He dont know. He only can have intuition. Thanks for your confidence in me! I am flattered. So what direction we have to go (in your opinion)? The L is definitely right, I don't really know. I can guess at the direction we need to go for quantum mechanics, I don't know enough about other branches of science to comment on them. My intuition (and this isn't really my intuition, I am just cobbling together ideas other scientists have brought up) is that exact solutions to the microstate of an absolute zero, many body ensemble are impossible to find, but exact solutions to the macrostate of a finite temperature, many body ensemble are solvable. The typical approach to solving a many body ensemble is to make approximations to get an answer for absolute zero, and then generalize (using statistical mechanics) that result to finite temperature situations. This works well for some situations but fails for others. I think there needs to be a more intimate connection between entropy and energy in quantum mechanics; I do not think that trying to solve for the energy (using ordinary quantum mechanics) and then including entropy (using statistical mechanics) is correct. But I don't know how to balance entropy with energy in a sensible way. And of course I could be totally wrong about all of this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted February 2, 2013 #32 Share Posted February 2, 2013 I dont see it as exaggerated. [...] Thats from my point of view, though getting results after hours/days and many pages of paper, is indeed delightful. [...] Also Fermat was genius too. Can't argue with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted February 2, 2013 #33 Share Posted February 2, 2013 [...] Thanks for your confidence in me! I am flattered. The L is definitely right, I don't really know. I can guess at the direction we need to go for quantum mechanics, I don't know enough about other branches of science to comment on them. My intuition (and this isn't really my intuition, I am just cobbling together ideas other scientists have brought up) is that exact solutions to the microstate of an absolute zero, many body ensemble are impossible to find, but exact solutions to the macrostate of a finite temperature, many body ensemble are solvable. The typical approach to solving a many body ensemble is to make approximations to get an answer for absolute zero, and then generalize (using statistical mechanics) that result to finite temperature situations. This works well for some situations but fails for others. I think there needs to be a more intimate connection between entropy and energy in quantum mechanics; I do not think that trying to solve for the energy (using ordinary quantum mechanics) and then including entropy (using statistical mechanics) is correct. But I don't know how to balance entropy with energy in a sensible way. And of course I could be totally wrong about all of this. Thanks for answer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Weapon Posted February 3, 2013 #34 Share Posted February 3, 2013 It's naive and egotistical to think that most of science has already been explained, and to say that there are no more scientific geniuses left is even more absurd of a notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted February 3, 2013 #35 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Genius is not dead - not dead by any method of calculation. What is needed is for more people to find applications for some of the extraordinary Fundamental Research that has been completed, or in progress. This is how meaningful (to the population) advances and inventiveness is perceived by Jo - Public (JP). They are not wrong. (IMO). One area that seems to have plateaud in recent decades is engine research for Space exploration - all of our best, and developed engines are just too slow to reach the planets in a short enogh time-frame to maintain JP´s interest. I believe there are also some breakthroughs in Comms technology that will be quite remarkable. I look to Graphene as posessing the potential for extraordinary applications, from immensely fast computing, to building a Space Elevator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted February 3, 2013 #36 Share Posted February 3, 2013 post script . i have some very smart people who say i am quite clever ... and a bipedal walking robot is a hobby... because no one on earth will spend a dime on real resurch , because the academics have got it so pipelined and formatted driven ... if you have any really good ideas , your never going to see the light of day .. watch the movie contact . the true genius is the one who is cut out and handed their hat ... its the game player , and the insiders who get the bucks to play buck rogers ... untill that changes ( do not hold your breath ) ... you will not see anything like genius . i have solutions for every problem man kind has seen in the last 150 years ... and not one will ever be seen because loud voices win out over smart voices . i should point out , i have made two people over 100 million dollors from ideas i did not get any credit for or any money from ... because the real work was done by them... but the ideas were mine ... i have not fewer than 100 other ideas... any one of which could make some one more than 100 million dollors... and frankly speaking... i do not care one bit , because realestate is where money goes... not ideas or manufacturing . you get what you pay for , you personaly are responcible for what you get , when you want the world to change... i am waiting .... i will not fight the war alone , i can do that with out your help . frankly speaking , all i want is to have enought money for materials and space to work . some one else to manage the business end and a warm place to work . Oh Dear!! Self - agrandisement is not a very nice trait, especially when claims cannot be substantiated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onereaderone Posted February 3, 2013 #37 Share Posted February 3, 2013 It's naive and egotistical to think that most of science has already been explained, and to say that there are no more scientific geniuses left is even more absurd of a notion. when building , the foundation is fundimental , getting it wrong will not simply limit how strong or how high you can go ... but can only end in rubble in time.... but getting it right may take meny trys ... not all successful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onereaderone Posted February 3, 2013 #38 Share Posted February 3, 2013 the great genius was not the man that builds the wheels , or the man that harness the horse , or the man that builds the wagon .... the genius is the women that nags the husband that " she does not want to walk all the way to the market carry'n the farm produce again ." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onereaderone Posted February 3, 2013 #39 Share Posted February 3, 2013 .....or..... the question that has never been asked , is the question that is hardest to answer . the concept of one , assumes more than one... but seeing one thing is far more difficult than seeing all the others that follow . you may look at an ocean as a single body of one water mass , or as meny seas... or vast numbers of single drops of rain ... seeing it clearly is not as hard as seeing it in a context that is novel or diffrent . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted February 4, 2013 #40 Share Posted February 4, 2013 It is not that there are less geniuses. It is that the ruler being used for one measure is not the same as being for the other. That there were lots of geniuses over a thousand years is true, but are we really expected to have to produce geniuses in decades now, and not centuries? And the math and science of those discoverys is more expansive now too, so Greater Genius has to come along, There are probably tens times the geniuses there was 100 years ago, and they probably could figure out what was figured out 100 years ago even faster, but they are being derided because they are not coming up with New Flash every minute of every day? This is a stupid question..... Plus.... The better geniuses are working in secret for Corporations or the Government, so we are not going to see and hear about all their ground breaking developements instantaneously. Just look at Stealth Technology in aviation. It was secret for almost 30 years before it went public. So, the really Good Stuff is probably still secret... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now