How does it make you feel?

>>7778849
at least he was a genius. i'm just virgin and stupid

>implying he wasn't homosex

>>7778849
bad, because I'm not a virgin anymore

>>7778886
>i'm just virgin and stupid

At least you admit it.

>>7778849
I was born a virgin

it took me that many years less to achieve the same thing.

He wasn't too concerned about it.

Why is Op concerned about it?

>>7778886
He was an alchemist and a quack, but he could do math well (hint: you could too if you tried)
Not really a genius just someone that's really popular.

>>7778849

I'd happily travel back in time and be a virgin for life if I could have newton's brain. Only people that make a big deal out of sex are people that can't get it.

>>7778970

>invented calculus, a completely new field of mathematics at 22 while on holiday from university and then converted his findings into the general mathematics of the day so the royal society, a society with the greatest scientists of the day, could understand him
>not a genius

Pick 1.

The quackery is the price he paid.

>>7778970

Lots of scientists back then believed in quackery and believed alchemy had some validity.

Inventing calculus itself is already intellectual sex, why need physical?

Would he have invented math if he was a pimp?

File: 1354437249088.jpg (38KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 184x184px

>>7779034
8/10, I laughed.

>>7778970
>He was an alchemist

So was pretty much everyone else. Ypu would not believe how long people believed that Space was filled with Aether.

>>7778849
>sharing your precious bodily fluids

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

>>7778970
>he could do math well
Then why did he only do trivial high school calculus?

>>7779034
>calculus
>intellectual sex
Choose only one. Calculus is trivial.

>>7779277
Inventing it, not just doing it.

>>7779284
That doesn't make it less trivial. Come back when you invent some real math.

Actually, he had a gf.

>>7779302
So do I, but I intend to remain virgin forever. Sex is disgusting.

>>7779125
>implying space isn't filled with aether

>>7779293

It's trivial now, but not at the time with the level of knowledge that existed. What have you invented? Nothing. You neckbeards are getting more arrogant every single day.

>>7779359
In his time the average IQ was in the mentally retarded range. Newton was a genius compared to the people of his time because he was of average intelligence by today's standards.

>>7778937
well it took you longer to be born. Isaac was born already in the 1600s

>>7778849
Makes me feel good. I always knew virginity makes people smarter. I can see myself among outstanding intellectuals such as Newton, Da Vinci, Elliot Rodger and Lubos Motl.

>>7778849
good

means I'm better than newton.

>>7779366
this is not true.

IQ is not dependent on education, and it's impossible that such a complex feature would evolve so much in so little time. Better said, it's impossible.

The average european IQ 2000 years ago was 100. yet we lived in straw huts and got #rekt on a daily basis by those pesky Mediterraneans.

Goes to show how you can turn a man into a monkey, but you can't turn a monkey into a man (looking at you, africans)

>>7779366
>average intelligence by today's standards.

He actually believes this baseless assertion. You're extrapolating out of your ass.

>>7779429
Look up the Flynn effect. And no, monkeys do not have an average IQ of 100.

'In September of that year, Newton had a breakdown which included sending wild accusatory letters to his friends Samuel Pepys and John Locke. His note to the latter included the charge that Locke "endeavoured to embroil me with woemen"'

Good lord. Although to be honest, this is nothing compared to Cavendish -
"Cavendish was taciturn and solitary and regarded by many as eccentric. He only communicated with his female servants by notes. By one account, Cavendish had a back staircase added to his house in order to avoid encountering his housekeeper because he was especially shy of women."

>>7779442
>And no, monkeys do not have an average IQ of 100.
you should improve your reading skills, pleb.

File: 1452428619395.jpg (11KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 320x180px

>>7779442

The flynn effect has been measured since 1930 and has measured the IQ of plebs. Plebs have seen their standard of living increase year on year since testing began. Jumping back centuries, you're extrapolating out of your ass.

There is no difference between the most intelligent people today and those during newton's time. They were not malnourished peasants. Your claim will be laughed at by any geneticist.

>>7779450
You're saying the average human IQ has always been 100. Since humans evolved from monkeys, this implies that monkeys' average IQ has also always been 100, which is demonstrably wrong. 2000 years ago the average IQ was below clinically retarded. Just look at the ancient Greek philosophers. Their reasoning is stupider than that of a toddler.

>>7779472
If Newton was so smart, then why did he never go further than calculus? Why didn't he invent some higher math? Because he was only a genius IN COMPARISON to his contemporaries. By today's standard he's average at best.

>>7779490
>If Newton was so smart, then why did he never go further than calculus? Why didn't he invent some higher math? Because he was only a genius IN COMPARISON to his contemporaries. By today's standard he's average at best.

>he thinks high intelligence guarantees discoveries.

You're literally a pleb.

>>7779502
Then why do you claim Newton was smart at all? Protip: He wasn't.

>>7779490
>Why didn't he invent some higher math? Because he was only a genius IN COMPARISON to his contemporaries. By today's standard he's average at best.

>If Euclid was so smart, then why did he go no further than basic geometry...By today's standards he's a first year undergrad at best
>If Euler was so smart, then why did he go no further than elementary number theory...By today's standards he's average at best
>If Fermat was so smart, then why couldn't he prove his last theorem....By today's standards he's average at best

You might be the biggest retard on this board.

>>7779514
Euler and Fermat actually did something non-trivial. But Newton only did high school calculus. Explain pls.

>>7779523
Did you skip the part of childhood where you gained theory of mind or what

>>7779539
No. Why do you ask?

>>7779523
It's only elementary because you've seen it done. Let's try again, since this concept is apparently too difficult for you to grasp. Have you ever heard of Columbus' egg? The story goes that Columbus was having dinner with a group of Spanish nobles, one of them asked quite why they should celebrate some achievement, after all it was simple enough to do and there are plenty of people in Spain who could have done it. So Columbus asked them to balance an egg on its tip, they all failed. Columbus then put a small dint in the top and balanced it.

>The moral is everything seems trivial after someone has the insight to do it.

You see this in every branch of science, take the work of Cauchy, Gauss, Euler, Newton, at the time ground-breaking and revolutionary, today it's trivial, taught to undergrads in a month.

It might also be worth noting that none of the geniuses that mentioned above had levels of rigour that would pass as standard today.

File: 1452474689765.jpg (45KB, 720x713px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 720x713px

>>7779429

Not that anon but it's very likely that the average IQ in Europe changed dramatically during the 1300's when the pleague basically wiped out roughly half the population.

That event alone would be significant enough to raise IQ. Of course this was way before Newton so it's more likely their IQ's were a bit higher than sub average.

But since Europe was also the most effected by WW 1 and 2 that probably bumped their IQ a few points too.

Hey guys, time traveler here from 4000. I heard that you haven't solved the Roch-Fulton-Spoopyman conjecture for sheafofolds. You guys all have the mathematical maturity of 4 year olds.

See y'all later.

>>7779547
>It's only elementary because you've seen it done.
It's trivial because any above average intelligent high schooler can derive it on their own.

>Have you ever heard of Columbus' egg?
Yeah, it's a retarded story and not funny.

>take the work of Cauchy, Gauss, Euler, Newton,
The first three did something non-trivial at least.

>>7779569
>I think Cauchy sequences and baby's first complex analysis is hard.

Kek, but I guess there really is no teaching some people.

>>7779555
Jokes on you, I'm writing a book on my hypothesis for sheafofolds, and it will make me rich.

>>7779555
In 300 years there will be undergrads on /sci/ saying Jacob Barnett wasn't smart because he only discovered the unification of gravity, quantum mechanics and consciousness.

>>7778849
What is greater:

Genghis Khan's genetic legacy or virgin
Newton's memetic legacy (in the original meaning of the word "meme")?

>>7778970
are you saying that alchemy isn't a valid science?
you can just call it alchemy when radioactive elements undergo transformations such as iodine to gold!

>>7779504

Okay. I'm leaning towards you being a troll.

Scientific discoveries are not determined solely by intelligence. I'll use you're bonner for IQ as an example. During the last century, a very smart man hypothesised that, if he could gather the most intelligent children (as supposedly measured by iq) from around the country and provide them with an elite level education, he'd be able to produce geniuses that would revolutionize fields and make new discoveries. The iq cut off was very high, something like 150-160.

Guess what happened? The majority of them became successful in business, academia, and so on. Yet none of them revolutionized any fields or made new discoveries. Ironically, some the children that didn't make the cut, because their IQ was deemed too low, later went on to win Nobel prizes.

Making discoveries is influenced by a lot more than just intelligence. There's very little difference in intelligence between the top scientists, if any. You need to be in the right place at the right time and have a lot of luck. Quite literally. Many scientific discoveries were complete accidents, after which new conclusions about the world could be made. It's an ever growing snowball.

>>7779613
You know full well that's not what he was doing.

>>7779629
But it is still valuable to me that people pursued the dream and searched ways of converting elements to each other and not resorted to some dogma as is the case with most scientific theories

>>7778886
Same here

>died

This cuck really believes Newton died. Read his alchemy papers.

>>7779307
Sounds like your gf is getting BLACKED on the side

>>7779616
So you admit that Newton was not a genius but just some average fagtard who had one sem-good idea?

truly a wizerd