Who is the greatest scientist in the last 500 years?

[Jon Miller]

chemistry is very much like condensed matter/solid state

Jon Miller

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's because physics is obviously the ultimate science.

Keep chanting that as you line up for your smallpox vaccination, it may help your uncertainty (pun intended).

Math isn't a science, BTW.

And the difference between math and GR or SR at the time they were written was?

[Ramo]

Keep chanting that as you line up for your smallpox vaccination, it may help your uncertainty (pun intended).

Biology is certainly useful, but that makes it no less inferior to physics.

And the difference between math and GR or SR at the time they were written was?

GR and SR applied to the physical world, dependent upon observation and the scientific method, while math was and always will be independent of observation and the scientific method. The physical world cannot validate or invalidate math.

[SpencerH]

But relativity wasnt confirmed by observation until fairly recently which makes it math when it was written doesnt it? Or are you pushing math into the realm of fantasy/science fiction i.e. that it can never be proven by physical measurement?

[Chemical Ollie]

Not all posts here seem to be written by rocket scientists. I could make a contribution on that level: You need a rocket scientist to calculate the size of my ****. It's bigger than the Apollo!

[gunkulator]

Newton - head and shoulders above the rest. All laws of motion and force combined into a single theory. Brilliant and elegant.

The only reason modern man can confidently undertake major engineering projects today is that the we have the assurance of our mathematical models made possible by Newton's laws. Everything from the Apollo Program to the Chunnel are part of his legacy.

[Ramo]

But relativity wasnt confirmed by observation until fairly recently which makes it math when it was written doesnt it? Or are you pushing math into the realm of fantasy/science fiction i.e. that it can never be proven by physical measurement?

1. Relativity (special and general) was ALWAYS testable. There was never anything intrinsically impossible in testing these theories through observing the physical world.

OTOH, it is intrinsically impossible to test a mathematical theory through observing the physical world, therefore it is not a science. Math is a huge system based on various assumptions. Aspects of a mathematical system are dependent only on these assumptions, not on the physical world.

2. No, GR was confirmed shortly after Einstein figured it out, though the orbit of Mercury IIRC.

3. This certainly doesn't make math "fantasy" or "science fiction." Science fiction makes purely speculative predictions on aspects of the physical world. Fantasy creates a world not constrained by science.

Math has nothing to do with any sort of world. It belongs to the same class of ideas as logic. It's a tool, not a science.

[LDiCesare]

Noone mentionning mathematicians (except Newton, who did a lot of math work but is praised as a physician)?
Poincarre.
This man laid out the foundations of relativity. Without his work, Einstein wouldn't have accomplished anything. Also, Poincarrre's accomplishments are numerous in the mathematical domain, he proved the validity of recursive proofs, and provided the most useful tools to all the 20th century physicists and matheaticians.

I'd probably rate Galileo Galielei above NEwton because the latter was such a son of a b***.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ramo

1. Relativity (special and general) was ALWAYS testable. There was never anything intrinsically impossible in testing these theories through observing the physical world.

Not intrinsically untestable, but it wasnt testable for some years after writing.

2. No, GR was confirmed shortly after Einstein figured it out, though the orbit of Mercury IIRC.

I guess I was thinking of an exception or error that was noted 10 years ago or so.

OTOH, it is intrinsically impossible to test a mathematical theory through observing the physical world, therefore it is not a science. Math is a huge system based on various assumptions. Aspects of a mathematical system are dependent only on these assumptions, not on the physical world.

3. This certainly doesn't make math "fantasy" or "science fiction." Science fiction makes purely speculative predictions on aspects of the physical world. Fantasy creates a world not constrained by science.

Math has nothing to do with any sort of world. It belongs to the same class of ideas as logic. It's a tool, not a science.

My analogy wasnt the best, but if math is by definition not testable through observations of the physical world then its theorums are analogous to religious beliefs and that the science of physics is merely 'applied mathematics'.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Newton

[Ramo]

Not intrinsically untestable, but it wasnt testable for some years after writing.

It was always testable, it just wasn't tested until a couple years later.

My analogy wasnt the best, but if math is by definition not testable through observations of the physical world then its theorums are analogous to religious beliefs

Actually, I would say that mathematical theorems are the exact opposite of religious beliefs. Mathematical theorems say assuming such and such is true, something-or-other follows. Religious beliefs (or any other kinds of beliefs) make no such qualifiers. No religious person would say that assuming God exists and assuming he said x and y, you should do a and b. A religious believer need not worry about whether assumptions are true as believing means taking an assumption for granted. Similarly, no mathematician would say that everything is an analytic function, so you can always expand everything into a convergent power series. No sane person "believes" that everything is an analytic function. You have to find something that fits the definition of an analytic function first before you can expand it into a power series.

and that the science of physics is merely 'applied mathematics'.

Pretty much everything is application of math, physics most of all. Not sure what you're getting at, though.

[Caesar the Great]

einstein/newton

second tier should probably include maxwell, darwin etc

any scientist can discover something revolutionary.... but the greatest scientist should be those who develop ideas that are the contradictory to what we percieve to be true

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ramo
Biology is certainly useful, but that makes it no less inferior to physics.

Quit dissing biology, nature is #1.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ramo

Actually, I would say that mathematical theorems are the exact opposite of religious beliefs. Mathematical theorems say assuming such and such is true, something-or-other follows. Religious beliefs (or any other kinds of beliefs) make no such qualifiers. No religious person would say that assuming God exists and assuming he said x and y, you should do a and b.

I wouldnt call them opposite at all. They're different in that initial belief vs assumption , but similarly different from science since they are both non-testable by physical observation.

Pretty much everything is application of math, physics most of all. Not sure what you're getting at, though.

It seems to me that your separation of math and physics is an arbitrary one. I appreciate the distinction that physics may take math into a physical realm (hence my description of physics as applied mathematics). Your point was that a mathematical theorum wasnt testable by observation and was therefore not science. My problem with that is how one would know for sure when writing a theorum that it's testable (and therefore physics) or not (and therefore math). You look back in time and say that Einstein knew that his work would be testable, but I ask how did he know that? Did Schroedinger know that someone would find a way to prove his theorum? Did he envision supercomputers and the scientific and engineering steps that allow these things to be tested? Given this blurring between math and physics at the moment of a theorums conception how can you make a distinction in terms of science and non-science?

[Ben Kenobi]

How about one for the chemists:

Linus Pauling.

Boris:

You have an interesting defense of Darwin considering some of the stuff he said about women, and the intelligence of women.

You need a rocket scientist to calculate the size of my ****. It's bigger than the Apollo!

ROTFLMAO.