if you could bring one scientist back from the dead, which one would you bring back and why? Pic related. he was one of the best science educators ever. he inspired many people towards science and explain it to even more. Also, he was a great scientist.

File: 70 KB, 328x448, Carl_Sagan_Planetary_Society.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:38:29 2011 No.3241171 [Reply] [Original]

if you could bring one scientist back from the dead, which one would you bring back and why?

Pic related. he was one of the best science educators ever. he inspired many people towards science and explain it to even more. Also, he was a great scientist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:41:29 2011 No.3241187 File: 30 KB, 400x521, l-ron-hubbard_4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I-RON.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:41:29 2011 No.3241189 File: 21 KB, 298x371, einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Inevitable image response.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:42:29 2011 No.3241190 steven dawkings

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:42:29 2011 No.3241191 Gottfried Leibniz scientific achievement used to be a matter of who and what a person was exposed to (by chance) with the internet, and Leibniz's raw genius, he would achieve more than Einstein or somebody

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:42:29 2011 No.3241194 File: 21 KB, 325x321, benjamin-franklin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Pic related. Dude's mind would be blown.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:43:29 2011 No.3241196 File: 38 KB, 316x400, gottfried_wilhelm_von_leibniz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3241191

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:43:29 2011 No.3241198 File: 15 KB, 200x258, 1294166473885.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] this sexy son of a bitch

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:44:29 2011 No.3241204 >>3241198 Was just about to post this.

>>	Achilles !!usY/JFe7UNl Fri Jun 17 11:44:29 2011 No.3241206 Alan Turing. Now go outside and get some sun.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:45:29 2011 No.3241208 File: 27 KB, 373x330, 1294166830237.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3241198 >>3241204 this is now a Feynman thread

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:45:29 2011 No.3241213 File: 59 KB, 590x521, 1294166749324.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3241208

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:45:29 2011 No.3241214 >>3241194 >implying he wouldn't kill himself after seeing what the country turned into

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:45:29 2011 No.3241216

>>3241191
thanks, i like this.

i think i'mma go with newton. reasoning goes like so:

more than any other single person, newton laid out the foundations of the physical world in terms of simple principles and mathematics. how we apply his basic laws to incredibly complex problems isn't something he could've foreseen. for example, the navier stokes equations are a simple application of his concept of momentum conservation.

with the advances in experimental knowledge and applied mathematics since his time, i feel that if he were brought up to speed, he could potentially make greater impact than any other individual.

also, sagan sucks, fucking children.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:46:29 2011 No.3241218 File: 32 KB, 407x352, 1294166538109.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3241213

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:46:29 2011 No.3241219 >>3241196 and he has the best hair evar

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:46:29 2011 No.3241221 File: 17 KB, 225x301, de-fermat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Just to find out what his solution to the theorem was. Fucking small margins.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:46:29 2011 No.3241224 File: 8 KB, 240x182, 1294166508458.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3241218

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:47:29 2011 No.3241234 File: 11 KB, 202x249, images..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Turing, Feynman, or Tesla because they were all absolutely brilliant.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:47:29 2011 No.3241235 >>3241216 way to choose someone who would achieve nothing. mfw when nobody chose sagan, you child

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:47:29 2011 No.3241236 >>3241214 >implying he wouldn't kill himself after seeing what the country turned into Yeah, but I think he could be talked out of it by showing him all the wonders of the electronic age. He'd be like a kid in a candy store.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:47:29 2011 No.3241238 File: 67 KB, 550x363, feynman diagrams.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:48:29 2011 No.3241240 File: 60 KB, 600x454, 1294166438531.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3241224

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:49:29 2011 No.3241246 File: 30 KB, 298x323, boltzman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] boltzmann was a motherfucking genius. I want him to get more ideas.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:50:29 2011 No.3241254
File: 19 KB, 281x249, 1294166688500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3241216
>>3241240

Newton is actually a brilliant choice.
he probably was the single greatest scientist, mathematician (maybe Euler and Gauss had him beat though) of all time.

he would definitely accomplish a great deal

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:51:29 2011 No.3241264

>>3241216
Sagan is still better - and let me explain why.

while no doubt Newton - and many others here donated alot more then Carl Sagan did, Carl Sagan was also an educator. he showed people the beauty of science and convinced some kids to pick up science. these kids later became scientist that contribute to science and might just be the next Newton.

so by proxy, Sagan will donate more then any one scientist can.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:52:29 2011 No.3241270 Tesla, motherfucker said he had a new theory of gravity and that he thought Einstein was totally wrong, Guy was a fucking genius

>>	EK FAN CLUB Fri Jun 17 11:52:29 2011 No.3241271 Ettore Majorana. There can be no doubt.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:53:29 2011 No.3241275 >>3241270 Fuck yeah! I am still waiting for that Wireless electricity!

>>	Achilles !!usY/JFe7UNl Fri Jun 17 11:54:29 2011 No.3241281 >>3241270 I was going to say this, but I knew someone would mention the man.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:54:29 2011 No.3241282 Newton would be a genius, but his mental instability means I doubt I would want to pull him on a trip to the future. I'd take Feynman. He'd be able to work with it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:54:29 2011 No.3241283 File: 27 KB, 249x330, hypatia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Hypatia of Alexandria. Mai sciencu waifu. ;-;

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:54:29 2011 No.3241288 >>3241270 Tesla was insane with no proof for any of the nonsense he made up. People need to stop worshiping his image.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:56:29 2011 No.3241297 >>3241288 Insane you say? well fuck you! Wireless electricity is real! he was right, it is possible! and they already did it!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:57:29 2011 No.3241301 >>3241264 Don't bother the people on here think science is a secret club, they don't want more people to get into science.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:57:29 2011 No.3241304
File: 12 KB, 250x183, 1294166799045.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3241254
>>3241264

maybe you're right, but who's to say that Newton wouldn't be just as good of an educator?

it's not like they had media like television, national magazines, or even simple expedient communication.

i think that, given these new media, Newton may do just as well as Sagan did.

but it's really a moot point, since we'll never know.

also, Feynman did an AMAZING job popularizing science. in fact, i heard more about Feynman and Sagan was kind of an after thought.
so i still think Feynman would be much better than Sagan (and there's no doubting Feynman is a more brilliant physicist), but Newton would probably be the best choice in terms of raw intellect.

also, it's not like Sagan - or any other educator - would inspire someone to become the next genius in physics. i mean every brilliant scientist (who we're still naming on this thread) pretty much knew that he/she was going to be a scientist from a very early age.

Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Fri Jun 17 11:58:29 2011 No.3241307

>>3241297

>>he was right, it is possible! and they already did it!

Induction, yes. We've even improved on it with magnetic resonance. I believe what he was referring to are the die hards who believe Tesla really had a death ray and earthquake machine.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:58:29 2011 No.3241312 >>3241297 you're right, wireless electricity is real. it's called FUCKING LIGHTNING, JACKASS

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 11:59:29 2011 No.3241320

>>3241254
Euler was my second choice =)

>>3241282
Feynman died in 1988. He was fairly smart and made some decent research contributions, but same as Sagan, he's best known more as an inspiration, and not even an educator. They're both complete wastes. Have we learned much in quantum mechanics since 1988 that Feynman would be able to pick up and suddenly solve the new hard problems that arose? Fuck nah.

That's why Newton is my choice. He's the giant's shoulders everyone stands on today. I feel like he could do well with the new knowledge we have accumulated.

>>3241264
No. If you only want Sagan for inspiring future scientists, we still have his videos, and we always will.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:02:29 2011 No.3241336 Fuck Sagan he's just some pothead idiot. I dont know anyone of my of my smart friends who idealize him. In fact I dont know of anyone who went into science because of him.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:03:29 2011 No.3241342 >>3241320 Videos aren't the same, besides its out of date already and we have lots of new information to give. but I guess you are right. we do have atleast something. and who knows, maybe Newton would be a great educator.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:04:29 2011 No.3241348

>>3241320
You don't know much about Feynman it seems. He was viewed with awe by his own peers. Other, very smart people, and experts in Physics consistently noted his ability to see things differently and solve problems that others couldn't.

You make him sound like a one hit wonder, when he was among the greatest scientists of the 20th century.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:05:29 2011 No.3241352

>>3241304
Isaac Newton has plenty of evidence showing him to be the prototypical recluse. He's theorized to have been age elastic (that is, was incapable of smiling and laughing), he attempted to make his theories and math so obtuse and obscure that no one would be able to understand it and he died alone.

Isaac Newton was brilliant, but your justification for bringing him back is stupid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:06:29 2011 No.3241359 I'd revive Einstein, just to troll him. He'd be quite pissed to see that quantum theory is among our most well-established theories. Also, he'd get a heart attack from hearing about string-theory and modern theoretical physics, I guess.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:06:29 2011 No.3241360 >>3241342 Videos are more than enough.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:06:29 2011 No.3241361
File: 9 KB, 200x248, 1294166575972.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3241320

as much as Feynman hated very modern theories like string theory (which seems to be all theoreticians are working on these days), he did start to learn it very late in his life.
i think Feynman would bring a massive amount of his physical intuition and brilliance to the field, things that are in high demand and much lacking today - things that Gell-Mann envied.

i think he would do wonderfully at picking up and working on string theory/modern physics. don't discount the achievements he made in quantum mechanics. his Feynman Diagrams alone saved everyone's asses when no one could compute the results of the QM equations.

not to say that Newton isn't a fantastic choice. it is really a though decision, given all that Newton did.
to me, they are tied. but Feynman would definitely fuck A LOT more women, so i'm gonna give him my vote.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:06:29 2011 No.3241362 File: 1.05 MB, 2957x2153, freud.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >hatersgonnahate.jpg

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:08:29 2011 No.3241369 >>3241361 Fuck no stop. String theory is retarded let's bring someone back who can do more than pseudo-intellectual jerking off

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:08:29 2011 No.3241371

>Outlining Quantum Thermodynamics
>Nobel Prize for Physics
>Worked on the Manhattan Project
>Cherished lecture series (The Feynman Lectures)
>Asked to be on the Challenger investigation team
>Played the Bongos

>>3241320
>Complete waste

You're a fucking idiot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:09:29 2011 No.3241376 Seriously, no one else for boltzmann? are you fucking retarded or just a bunch of high-scoolers? (newton, LOL)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:10:29 2011 No.3241381 File: 123 KB, 800x572, choco leibniz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:10:29 2011 No.3241384
File: 64 KB, 708x600, 1294166332295.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3241361
>>3241369

dude, did you even read my post?

i'm not saying that string theory is great, nor am i saying that it is bad.

all i'm saying is that Feynman would probably be able to make some huge leaps in the field of modern science; whether that is confirming string theory's predictions, or completely destroying it, i don't care. both would be magnificent advancements in scientific understanding.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:12:29 2011 No.3241392 Marie Curie so I could have sex with her.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:13:29 2011 No.3241396

>>3241352
>he attempted to make his theories and math so obtuse and obscure that no one would be able to understand it
i'm gonna have to ask for source on this. he had regular communication with other scientists of his era, interacting with the royal society, including Hooke (negatively), Halley, Wren...

Principia is beyond any shadow of debate the most important single work in the history of science and mathematics, and has had the greatest impact on the largest number of people. If Newton ever intended to make his theories impossible for others to understand, he did a demonstrably fucking TERRIBLE job of it.

>Isaac Newton was brilliant, but your justification for bringing him back is stupid.
nope.jpg

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:13:29 2011 No.3241398 anyone <= 1 on landau's list

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:13:29 2011 No.3241399 Euler, Leibnitz, maybe Fourier If you pick a scientific educator or an engineer, you're retarded

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:14:29 2011 No.3241403 >>3241384 Feynman died in 1988 motherfucker. I realize you weren't even born yet, but fuck. That's not very long ago. To think another 22 years would've made a massive different is retarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:16:29 2011 No.3241415 Sagan was a hipster http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37sKI7d7-xA

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:17:29 2011 No.3241417 >>3241403 You seem to think that science hasn't budged an inch in 30 years or something. Science isn't technology. Science doesn't have a set or even apparent progression rate. Science needs people to push it forward.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:17:29 2011 No.3241422 File: 28 KB, 308x479, 1294166362320.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3241403 explain? i don't really see what your point is

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:21:29 2011 No.3241431

>>3241399
i dont think mathematicians would help
Witten got the fields medal which just shows how abstract his stuff is, we need a physicist to progress.
Majorana is a good choice, but maybe also dirac/schrodinger some of the fathers of quantum to straighten things out

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:21:29 2011 No.3241434

>>3241417
No, science has certainly advanced in 30 years. People have been continually pushing forward Feynman's old work, just as he continued the work of those before him. Furthermore, Feynman didn't really publish anything groundbreaking after the 50s. If there were crushing problems holding back the field from then till his death that he could've solved, he didn't.

>Science isn't technology.
wat

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:21:29 2011 No.3241435 This thread needs more Feynman

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:23:29 2011 No.3241445 File: 57 KB, 363x500, feynman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3241435 Because a thread can never have enough Feynman.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:26:29 2011 No.3241455

>>3241422
My metric for who to bring back is simply who could potentially make the biggest difference to the most people in the most dramatic way. If Feynman came back from the dead (from fucking 1988 mind you), he'd have 22 years worth of research to catch up on, and could end up maybe writing a few papers looking into what's been learned in that time. This is low impact stuff, specifically because there aren't a plethora of huge new breakthroughs for him to interpret.

Compare this to Newton, who was really the impetus for the scientific advancement of all mankind, and quite literally *WROTE* the "first principles" that practically everything after has been based on. The things we have learned and stumbled on in the centuries since are myriad. Newton is shown capable of insight into extremely broad phenomena. This is not true of Feynman.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:27:29 2011 No.3241457 Probably Nikola Tesla. The dude was brilliant in so many ways it's ridiculous.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:28:29 2011 No.3241459 >>3241457 Care to expand? You seem to be knowledgeable on Tesla.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:28:29 2011 No.3241461
File: 22 KB, 458x300, 1294166609748.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3241435
can do sir. i feel it's my duty.

>>3241434
that's mainly because all of the big problems in physics after ~70's were in string theory. there was QCM, but we had that one licked pretty quickly, with Feynman's help too.

that being said, no one really published anything groundbreaking after the 50's. i'm not saying there wasn't being good science done, but you make it seem like a great physicist should have something akin to QED or General Relativity every decade. even Einstein didn't really publish anything after GR.

who's to say he wouldn't have some brilliant insights into the confusing and tumultuous state of physics today?
after all, he was legendary among scientists in the field for doing just that - weeding out the dumb shit, getting straight to the fundamentals of the problems, and solving the shit out of it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:30:29 2011 No.3241468 File: 147 KB, 800x601, what-would-richard-feynman-do.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:31:29 2011 No.3241473 >>3241455 You don't have to know every single thing that's happened in science. Would Newton have 350 years of research to catch up on? No, he would just start fresh.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:37:29 2011 No.3241490
File: 10 KB, 200x186, 1294166860642.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3241461
>>3241455

wow, i have to completely disagree with you. if there is one thing Feynman is known for, it is his "insight into extremely broad phenomena". not only was he a leading theoretician in physics, he pretty much started nanotechnology, liked to work in biology, developed a new branch of mathematics (for QED), worked on the Challenger disaster, and has the ability to explain all sorts of phenomena with his insight - for a source on that, just read the Feynman Lectures, or 6 Easy Pieces & 6 Not So Easy Pieces. he explains how these theories apply to massive and wide phenomena.

also, i would think Feynman would be better because he could get right on the ball, seeing as he only missed 22 years. if anything, i think that'd be an advantage.

(sorry if i reuse a picture by the way, i'm not keeping very good track)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:38:29 2011 No.3241492 >>3241320 >They're both complete wastes. How edgy of you. There seems to be this consensus on /sci/ that if you're an advocate of science, you lose all credability. It's really your own loss if you wish to disregard their teachings.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:38:29 2011 No.3241494 NIkola Tesla.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:40:29 2011 No.3241505 Fuck this "Bring back one" shit bring them all back for fucks sake have them start their own institute make shit work

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:41:29 2011 No.3241507

>>3241459
Tesla has been proven right and right again as time goes on, his AC electricity is superiour to DC, his weapon was said to end all wars with the power to destroy aircraft 200 miles away and incapacitate all men, he discovered X-rays, tuned radio circuits (the foundation of radio as we know it today), high frequency AC generators (used to create the radio carrier waves and power fluorescent lighting with only one lead wire), wireless (by radio) remote controlled submersible submarine, plans for an ion-propelled aircraft, the Wardenclyffe Tower facility, Magnifying transmitter, and 111 patents.

Citation:
Martin, Thomas Commerford. "The Inventions, Researches and Writings of Nikola Tesla - 1894", Kessinger Publishing Company, March, 1997. ISBN 1-56459-711-3

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:42:29 2011 No.3241515

>>3241461
Dude. Newton. Isaac Newton. It's fucking Newton dude. He's stood the test of time. You can't even fucking BEGIN to compare the breadth of Feynman's work to the goddam Principia. First fucking principles dude. Feynman would agree with me.

>>3241473
no, "starting fresh" is totally contrary to the point of this exercise. we'd start with showing him what we learned about relativity and QM.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:45:29 2011 No.3241529

Electrical Engineer here, all of you Tesla retards are out of your minds. What we do not need now is a neurotic, secretive Serb engineer who will get talked into indentured servitude for some design house the second he gets off the boat. And then all you dilettantes have the nerve to call him your favorite "unknown" scientist. 3 phase was a good idea, everything else was a waste of time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:47:29 2011 No.3241537 >>3241494 thomas edison and his elephant

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:53:29 2011 No.3241559
File: 8 KB, 220x279, 1294166895968.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3241515

i'm not disagreeing with you. i think Newton would be an excellent choice. and yeah, Feynman would think it's Newton too, but that's just 'cause he's modest.

all i'm saying is that the physical insight and intuition that Feynman had would be more useful and applicable to today's work than Newton's.
than again, Newton was able to start in a field with no one and nothing to build on but his own intellect. i'm not sure how that would work out today, but it is a massive achievement.

so they are pretty closely tied for me.
but as i said before, Feynman would fuck A LOT more women, and would be generally a riot to have around. that being said, he would also be a great educator. so gets my vote.

>>	QUIT FAGGING UP MY /sci/ Fri Jun 17 12:54:29 2011 No.3241565 EINSTEIN OR NEWTON ANYONE ELSE GTFO MY /sci/

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:55:29 2011 No.3241568

>>3241507
>Tesla has been proven right and right again as time goes on, his AC electricity is superiour to DC,
For sure, this is his main accomplishment
>his weapon was said to end all wars with the power to destroy aircraft 200 miles away and incapacitate all men,
Oh wow, it was SAID TO, HOW AMAZING
>he discovered X-rays,
No he didn't
>tuned radio circuits (the foundation of radio as we know it today),
Yeah some of his radio work was good
>high frequency AC generators (used to create the radio carrier waves and power fluorescent lighting with only one lead wire),
He wasn't central in this
>wireless (by radio) remote controlled submersible submarine,
allegedly
>plans for an ion-propelled aircraft,
oh wow, plans
>the Wardenclyffe Tower facility,
Tremendous waste of resources for no published science
>Magnifying transmitter, and
useless toy
>111 patents.
Not impressive

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:57:29 2011 No.3241580 >>3241171 >>SCIENTIST >>SCIENCE EDUCATOR make up your mind

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 12:57:29 2011 No.3241583 Einstein is clearly the greatest mind of all time. Anyone who says any other name is just a hipster faggot because they think he's too mainstream.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 13:00:29 2011 No.3241601 >>3241580 he was also a scientist dipshit

Grothendieck !Topos4qCwc Fri Jun 17 13:04:29 2011 No.3241623
File: 61 KB, 400x481, James_Clerk_Maxwell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

So much small time in this thread.

This motherfucker right here would need about a week to get up to speed on modern developments.
He'd have quantum gravity sorted in about a month.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 13:08:29 2011 No.3241637 File: 24 KB, 472x251, 1294166302134.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3241559 just posting the last of my Feynman

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 13:10:29 2011 No.3241645

One who'd I'd like to see what he could do now is Galileo. He came up with some very important ideas about our universe while still under heavy oppression from the church. I'd like to see what someone like him could do with much less oppression.

Or I'd love to smoke with Sagan.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 13:24:29 2011 No.3241703

>>3241559
>the physical insight and intuition that Feynman had would be more useful and applicable to today's work

see, this is retarded, because he died in 1988, and for the last 30 years of his life he didn't do anything that noteworthy as far as research goes. you say "modern" like he somehow was never exposed to a bunch of new ideas. i posit that if zombie feynman would be prolific in 2011, then he should've been prolific in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 13:29:29 2011 No.3241733 Nikola Tesla obvioufuckingsly.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 13:31:29 2011 No.3241741
File: 15 KB, 269x312, 1294166396969.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3241703

dude, no one was prolific in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.
you don't have to be prolific all the time to be a fantastic scientist. Einstein too didn't do much after GR. that doesn't mean his ideas didn't revolutionize the world.

also he was kinda battling 2 types of cancer. he did his best to ignore it, but dude, it's fucking double cancer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 13:33:29 2011 No.3241756 >>3241741 So why the fuck would you want to regen a guy that has proven incapable of solving a specific set of questions to solve the same questions a couple decades later? Fresh eyes, man.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 13:43:29 2011 No.3241804
File: 9 KB, 150x229, earlyfeynman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3241756

he wasn't even working on string theory, in fact he tried to stay away from it as much as possible. i'm just saying he could give some great insight if he tried.

so dude, i admire your determination, but i'm fucking tired. i have shit to do today.

i see your points, and they are good. so i'll sway my vote from the ever-sexy Feynman, to Newton if it'd please you. i was really on the fence anyway

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 13:54:29 2011 No.3241858 >>3241804 >i'll sway my vote from the ever-sexy Feynman, to Newton if it'd please you. holy shit, someone (i) just won an argument with an anonymous person on the internet? this is some historically important shit right here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 14:03:29 2011 No.3241895 >>3241858 >holy shit, someone (i) just won an argument with an anonymous person on the internet? this is some historically important shit right here. Science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 14:18:29 2011 No.3241962 File: 14 KB, 460x288, feynman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3241858 >>3241895 yeah, you're welcome. i figure this should happen at least SOMETIMES on /sci/

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 14:22:29 2011 No.3241982 Srinivasa Iyengar Ramanujan or John von Neumann I think either of those would have a great effect.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 14:28:29 2011 No.3241999 >>3241982 YOU WOULD REALLY STAND AT ST PETERS CURLY GATES AND SAY "RAMANAJWHATEVERTHEFUCK" AND LEAVE EINSTEIN BEHIND THE BARS OF THE GATES AND HAPPILY COME BACK TO EARTH THINKING YOU HAVE MADE A GOOD DECISION? GTFO AND NEVER COME BACK FAG

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 14:31:29 2011 No.3242009
File: 59 KB, 504x533, 20100130.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm not convinced that bringing back these guys would have a significant effect on modern science and math. Education was rare in the time of Newton, or Euler. Where these men just god like geniuses the world hasn't seen since? Mathematical and scientific breakthroughs happen every day, but they're more evenly distributed to a great number of people.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 14:33:29 2011 No.3242014

>>3241999
Oh please.
Einstein couldn't contributed much more than he already has.
Ramanujan on the other hand, was, without even having a formal education, one of the greatest mathematicians who ever lived, and if it weren't for his untimely death and unfortunate childhood could probably have contributed more to mathematics than anyone who has ever lived.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 14:40:29 2011 No.3242034

Isaac Newton is a terrible choice. He got crazier and crazier as he got older (and he was never especially NOT crazy to begin with). The better part of his life was spent trying to do alchemy and finding secret codes in the Bible. I very much doubt he would even be able to handle the modern world, let alone contribute to it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 14:43:29 2011 No.3242037 File: 58 KB, 600x450, bucky13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Jesus

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 14:46:29 2011 No.3242047 File: 18 KB, 324x313, 342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Darwin Because he was a god tier scientist and because of all the lulz that would follow.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 14:46:29 2011 No.3242049

>>3242014
Ramanujan made like 3500 new results, mostly equations and identities.
he was just playing with maths with some intuition for what works with numbers.
we need a physicist with intution for physics
einstein started or made huge breakthroughs in so many different fields of physics: he obviosuly had an unequalled physical insight.

if you want a decent physicist who died before his time (or went missing) then why not Majorana?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 14:51:29 2011 No.3242072 >>3242047 this

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 14:53:29 2011 No.3242087 File: 67 KB, 420x659, Leonardo_self.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >implying anyone could beat this übermensch of the year, all years.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 14:56:29 2011 No.3242104 >>3242087 We already have lots of artists and designers who have no understanding of or intuition for the physical universe. See instant boiling microwave ring.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 14:57:29 2011 No.3242108 File: 239 KB, 588x469, 1289762029251.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3242104

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 15:01:29 2011 No.3242125 >>3242108 >look at dis flyan mashine >powrd by 4 guize >flyz on angl of attck Genius! 10/10! Maestro!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 15:02:29 2011 No.3242133 >>3242047 Holy shit can you imagine the shitstorm if Darwin rose from the dead? Religitards would shit a nut.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 15:05:29 2011 No.3242147 >>3242087 What did Da Vinci do that was so great?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 15:06:29 2011 No.3242157 >>3242125 >dissect human bodies >build clockwork robots based on the anatomy of the human form

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 15:07:29 2011 No.3242165 >>3242104 If you just did what I think you did, then well played. I'd bring back aristotle as a 99 year old man just so he could see how incorect all his theories were before he died again

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 15:07:29 2011 No.3242167
File: 102 KB, 497x746, 1296510890569.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3242125

I could just write you off as a troll, but I think even if you are joking that some people may actually believe as you do.

So, I will tell you why you're wrong.

People commonly say his designs don't work, but he was incredibly secretive and he was anti-war. He knew that his machines would be super effective so he purposely drew mistakes in his design in order to keep them from being stolen and used for bad.

Da Vinci was not some idiot artist. He based everything he did off experience so he would know that it works because he left little to theory. However, he knew the merits of logic and mathematics.

Just read some of things from journals, stuff like

"Let no man who is not a Mathematician read the elements of my work."

"Many will think they may reasonably blame me by alleging that my proofs are opposed to the authority of certain men held in the highest reverence by their inexperienced judgments; not considering that my works are the issue of pure and simple experience, who is the one true mistress. These rules are sufficient to enable you to know the true from the false— and this aids men to look only for things that are possible and with due moderation— and not to wrap yourself in ignorance, a thing which can have no good result, so that in despair you would give yourself up to melancholy."

"Among all the studies of natural causes and reasons Light chiefly delights the beholder; and among the great features of Mathematics the certainty of its demonstrations is what preeminently (tends to) elevate the mind of the investigator. Perspective, therefore, must be preferred to all the discourses and systems of human learning. In this branch [of science] the beam of light is explained on those methods of demonstration which form the glory not so much of Mathematics as of Physics and are graced with the flowers of both."

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 15:10:29 2011 No.3242185

>>3242034
>The better part of his life was spent trying to do alchemy and finding secret codes in the Bible.

Right. This ended up to be an immense waste of time, but he had no way of really knowing that at the time. Also, the "alchemy" thing is heavily mischaracterized. It's easy for someone in the modern world to say trying to turn lead to gold is stupid. At the time, they had no concept of basic chemistry or the atomic nature of matter. You're a dumb idiot if you think alchemy is "crazy" in the context.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 15:11:29 2011 No.3242189 >>3242167 awe come on.... now you're adding a whole conspiracy level to his designs.... >reminiscent of "free energy suppression"

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 15:14:29 2011 No.3242203
File: 494 KB, 800x1147, DaVinci-ShouldersLarge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3242189

Alright, 2/10 you got me.

But to anybody interested, I suggest you really read about Da Vinci. I am convinced he was a genius that has yet to see a parallel.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 15:16:29 2011 No.3242214 I agree with OP on Sagan for a person that can inspire a generation to deal with science and thinking rationally to achieve new insights is much more valuable than a single talented person, no matter how gifted that person might be.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 15:17:29 2011 No.3242218 thats supposed to be to think not thinking

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 15:25:29 2011 No.3242260

>>3242214
Made clear by the retards of /sci/, teachers are needed much more than inspiration. Let me drop some logic.

Carl Sagan filmed Cosmos in 1980. I believe that the fans of Sagan most identify that series with his inspirational effect, yes? And yet, I'm willing to bet the vast majority of Sagan supporters posting here were born after 1980. So here you claim to be inspired by a man you have never met, and only know through his exploits that have been caught on film. This is fine; there is a great series of films in my field from the 50s that are brilliant.

The logical fallacy here is that you assert that we should rebirth Sagan so he can inspire future generations; yet, after his death, he has inspired you personally. Therefor, the effect you desire to result from his respawning is something that already exists, making it a silly waste of such power.

QED.

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 15:38:29 2011 No.3242377

>>3242260

I agree with you logic except for the fact that the biggest part of the generation born in the last twenty years don't know of his exploits, but maybe they would if he were still alive and use the modern media in order to convey his message. It wouldn't even have to be him, just people with the gift of awakening someones interest.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 15:41:29 2011 No.3242390 >>3242377 rather than ressurecting sagan, i just think they should air marathons of the cosmos quaterly

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 15:49:29 2011 No.3242453

>>3242377
1) People aren't as interested in science as they once were. Even in the last few years, consider the decline of History/TLC/Discovery. I don't really think Sagan can change that. Forcing a mouthbreather to watch Cosmos isn't going to fix him.

2) I never really found Sagan to be any more inspiring than the best university professors I've had. No amount of TV appearances can replace being face to face with a brilliant person explaining their passion in a classroom.

3) What's more scientifically inspiring than tangible results? Seeing men walking on the moon or watching a shuttle launch is far more ethereal and inspirational than any talking can really provide.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 17 16:11:29 2011 No.3242608 >>3242157 >dissect human bodies >draw clockwork robots based on the anatomy of the human form >Da Vinci was not an engineer

Anonymous Fri Jun 17 20:15:29 2011 No.3243551
File: 460 KB, 1810x1354, CTHULHU_by_reau[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3241171
> if you could bring one scientist back from the dead, which one would you bring back and why?
I would bring back Cthulhu from the dead. Just think of all the ways he could advance society!

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math