[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 26 KB, 252x314, gauss-1-sized.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976360 No.2976360 [Reply] [Original]

Most intelligent/most important scientists?

Friend of mine says in his opinion it's probably Newton, Gauss and Euler.

Your thoughts?

>> No.2976387

Euclid.

>> No.2976390 [DELETED] 

>>2976360
Noether

Her work as had the greatest impact in science by far, more so that Newton, Guass or even Euler.

>> No.2976393

Tesla.

>> No.2976392

Edison.

>> No.2976395
File: 1.36 MB, 1124x2692, dmitri_mendeleev.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976395

Obligatory

>> No.2976398
File: 3 KB, 126x126, 1301867804910.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976398

>>2976392
>>2976393

>> No.2976402 [DELETED] 
File: 370 KB, 640x640, 1304086896562.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976402

>>2976390
Seconded.

>> No.2976410

>>2976360
>Most intelligent/most important scientists
pick one

Most important is obviously Newton
Most intellegent is maybe Hawking. Just think about what he had accomplished under full paralysis.

also
>Euler
>scientist

>> No.2976411

Most Important? Charles Darwin. Not because of his theory, groundbreaking as it was, but because of how it shifted so many people's viewpoint on science.

Most intelligent is difficult to determine.

>> No.2976413 [DELETED] 

>>2976360
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether

\thread

>> No.2976421
File: 8 KB, 263x306, Dr Hovind.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976421

Dr Kent Hovind.

/thread

>> No.2976420

>>2976419
Jackie Chan?

>> No.2976419
File: 56 KB, 720x480, 66258_487015866202_184331976202_7457698_8229491_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976419

Man is so smart
I've met him

>> No.2976425

>>2976419

Funny thing is, he's probably smarter than all of /sci/ combined despite the shit we give him here. And by smart I mean both intellectually and more knowledgeable.

>> No.2976430

Aristotle

>> No.2976432

>>2976413
>woman
>important

>> No.2976434

>>2976390
OP here, I've never even heard of her, thanks.

Seems all the greats are german jews.

I suppose you can ask how much she relied on the work of those others to do her own work? Everyone builds on the work of those before them, but from the little I've read on wikipedia she seems to have been incredibly influential. Einstein wouldn't describe just anyone as "the most important woman in the history of mathematics" for no good reason.

I won't pretend to know a lot about mathematics or physics, but I'm genuinely interested.

>> No.2976435
File: 8 KB, 215x300, cerndirac1_9-02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976435

>No mention of Dirac

I'm ashamed /sci/.

It's either Him, Newton, or Euler

>> No.2976448
File: 45 KB, 200x200, 1296107743508.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976448

hipsters all up in here

>> No.2976452

>>2976448

>A bunch of nerds all fighting about which obscure scientists is the smartest.

...What?

>> No.2976460

In the last 200 years, we learned more (scientifically speaking) than we did for the entirety of human history before that. If anyone lists a scientist from before then, they're retarded and most likely a history major.

>> No.2976466

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

>> No.2976471

>Newton

Hardly. He is overrated. Newton's laws of motions had already been studied by Galilei, he favoured a 1/r law of gravitation until he had to come to terms with the fact that Hooke was right and it was 1/r², and don't even get me started on how retarded his form of calculus is when compared to Leibniz's.

I'll go with Gauss.

>> No.2976468

>>2976460
The question is, would they have been able to do that if it wasn't for the fundamental groundwork lain by those who came before?

>> No.2976477

>>2976460
one cannot build a house without a proper foundation.

>> No.2976478

>>2976471
>a scientist who weighs his own theories against others and chooses the better one over his own
wow, what an idiot

>> No.2976482

>>2976411
If you're going by that line of thought, you might as well mention people like Salman Khan or even Carl Sagan though.

>> No.2976486

>>2976482
Sagan is a tool

>> No.2976491

>>2976486

I agree. feynman made science so much more interesting

>> No.2976489 [DELETED] 
File: 462 KB, 2128x2832, 1304077848674.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976489

>>2976434
Noether works basically unifies all of physics into a more axomiatic framework. She fully explains why things are "conserved or not conserved" and why "conservation equations exists". She bascially explains where all our equations and ideas come from, on the most fundmental level.

She is able to tie conservation directly to inherit properties and symmeteries of the universe. All known working physical theories (Mechanics, Relativity, Quantum mechnaics, Quantum field theory) can be derived from her work.

All those who are smart enuogh to fully understand her work (usually Phd's and some grad studnets) know she is the most important physicist by far. Her work influences every aspect and every branch of physics, and is not limitied in field or scope (like the contributions of most others).

>> No.2976492

>>2976482

If you're going to go with that logic then you almost certainly have to pick Euclid, actually.

>> No.2976498 [DELETED] 
File: 75 KB, 600x720, GENTLEMAN.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976498

>>2976390
Noether is one bad ass bitch.

\thread

>> No.2976510

My favourite has to be gauss or pauli

>> No.2976511

>>2976489
isn't that the Langrangian/Hamiltonian Principle?

>> No.2976518

>Science is a base of WE, spawned from OUR civilization.
>If we were to compare we should only compare our science against another civilization's... and only to compare and improve.

All contribute to the whole of understanding. It is not meant to be a dick measuring contest. Men once held groups to ask each other what they thought of the world, how to explain it. Weight should be given to the idea, not the person. Take away these people who discovered these things and you'll have others to replace them.

Despite what our governments and systems of academia say to us, it should not be a competition.

>> No.2976522

>>2976489
Wow, okay. That certainly is impressive, that her work influences everything, because like you said, most other scientists work very hard in a specific field and while their contributions in that field can be huge, to have an impact on physics and mathematics as a whole is quite a feat.

>> No.2976526 [DELETED] 

>>2976511
Nope

>> No.2976530

Schrödinger?

>> No.2976541
File: 100 KB, 572x451, schrodingercat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976541

>>2976530
the man murders kittens for his research, how can you praise someone like that?

>> No.2976542

The ones you never hear of.

>> No.2976545

>>2976541
>the man *sometimes* murders kittens for his research, how can you praise someone like that?
Fixed that for you.

>> No.2976548

archimedes, newton, tesla

maybe faraday

fuck edison, at best he's a businessman

>> No.2976555
File: 32 KB, 500x500, 1300740109463.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976555

Kepler & Darwin

>> No.2976566

Newton, Einstein, Planck

In that order

>> No.2976568
File: 60 KB, 200x256, gauss.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976568

>> No.2978586

>>2976486
You're going to die now.

>> No.2978691

Newton, Hamilton, Maxwell, Schrodinger, Kepler