Greatest Scientists of all Time

[MG1962]

This is valid, but it sometimes gets taken to the point of absurdity.


"Tesla invented anti-gravity and a way to violate the laws of thermodynamics, but we can't reproduce it due to the errors he left in his notes!"

Definitely and in defining how good or bad the man was relies a lot on disguising between the man and the myths. He was a good self promoter, in doing that you are going to struggle to get an investor interested in a new type of light bulb, but mention fly cars and some people are going to flock to the idea

 

[Furcifer]

One of Tesla's demonstrations of wireless power without great loss of power involved lighting 400 lamps that were 25 miles away wirelessly.
I suspect no one can do that today without frying the whole countryside.

I believe that's correct. And always has been.

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

No mention of Dmitri Mendeleev at all on this thread? I am a little surprised that his name didn't come up (unless I missed it).

That was one of the first names I thought of too after reading the first half page.
The Periodic Table is a pretty big achievement.

Anyone put in Rutherford yet? Got to have a Kiwi in there!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Moseley

That was one of the first names I thought of too after reading the first half page.
The Periodic Table is a pretty big achievement.

Anyone put in Rutherford yet? Got to have a Kiwi in there!

Rutherford's student, Henry Gwyn Jeffreys Moseley, did some amazing work to straighten out some discrepancies in the periodic table.
EDT
Moseley died at 26, a casualty of WWI. What a terrible loss.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

No mention of Dmitri Mendeleev at all on this thread? I am a little surprised that his name didn't come up (unless I missed it).

Definately the top chemist on my list.

Different phonemes. The German "eu" is much like the English "oy", whereas the Classical Greek Eu is more like "ev" or "eo" depending on accent.

Ja, ja. Heute, euch, etc. I read it as yewler instead of oiler.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yep, there were so many in the olden days. Many of them remain unknown too, even though they've made some revolutionary inventions in their time (eg Ktesibios).

I was just watching the "Who Speaks For Earth" chapter of Cosmos and Sagan was discussing the lost works of the Alexandian library, where we only have references and allusions to ideas once written, but lost forever. If only the works of Ktesibios and his contemporaries had been preserved and appreciated... our list today might look very different.

 

[epepke]

Wait, wasn't Tesla's AC 2-phase?

The Westinghouse system was, but Tesla's idea was 3-phase. Probably had something to do with his ob-com obsession about the number 3, but still, a fantastic idea.

Tesla was unquestionably, undoubtedly, a brilliant genius. He was also unquestionably, undoubtedly, a nutcase who was credited for a lot more than he gave, in part due to his own skill at self-promotion.

Still, 3-phase power, advocacy for AC, radio (even if he had a bad idea about how it worked), early remote control, turbines, figuring out that the lightning system should be considered an LC system with a resonant frequency, that's all great stuff. So he liked pigeons and didn't shake hands and required 18 napkins.

 

[Westwall]

A hard list but here are mine.

Archimedes
Pliny the Elder
Copernicus
Gallileo
Newton
James Hutton
Alfred Wallace
Tesla
Alfred Wegener
Einstein

 

[Dinwar]

I can't agree on Wegener. I agree that plate tectonics is one of the most influential ideas of all time, but Wegener wasn't the guy to come up with it. His idea--continental drift--was full of errors and absurdities (like pushing granite through basalt). He got people interested in the idea, but the theory he's best known for was very, very wrong.

 

[Westwall]

I can't agree on Wegener. I agree that plate tectonics is one of the most influential ideas of all time, but Wegener wasn't the guy to come up with it. His idea--continental drift--was full of errors and absurdities (like pushing granite through basalt). He got people interested in the idea, but the theory he's best known for was very, very wrong.

I consider him one of the great polymaths of that era. His PhD was in Astronomy but it was his contributions to meteorology and climatology that were profound. He pioneered the use of weather baloons and
was instrumental in determining the existence of the Jet Stream. His continental drift theory was indeed just a reiteration of ideas going back as far as Bacon in the 1600's. However, he was the first one to tie fossil evidence and geologic evidence together in a rational explanation of the observations.

Further he is the first to postulate the existence of a super continent which he called Urkontinen and which we now recognize as Pangaea. He definately had some harebrained ideas for how the drift was accomplished but in 1912 when everybody else was still of the belief that mountains were created by the shrinking of the Earths crust (a theory still in vogue in a 1962 printed Atlas I might add) he actually put forth the idea of sea floor spreading and the probable role of the Mid Atlantic Ridge stating "the Mid-Atlantic Ridge ... zone in which the floor of the Atlantic, as it keeps spreading, is continuously tearing open and making space for fresh, relatively fluid and hot sima [rising] from depth" which we now know to be absolutely true.

The state of scientific instrumentation of the day did not allow him to figure out how the spreading occured. That had to wait for Vine and Mathews, Harry Hess and finally J. Tuzo Wilson to put the mechanics of operation together. And that took 35 years and the creation of a whole new specialisation of geology to accomplish.

 

[randman]

Yeah, I got that. However, he's obviously not an INFLUENTIAL scientist, because, as you admit, people don't pay much attention to his theories. As such, I find it difficult to call him "great" (I should note that to me, how "great" something is is directly related to how much impact is has--for example, Pong was a great video game, though I don't consider it very good; in contrast, Skyrim is a good video game, but I seriously doubt it can be considered great).

No, replicability is pretty much the core of science. You can have as many photos as you want--but unless it can be independantly reproduced, it ain't science. That's why Steven Dutch argues that mericals, even if they really happened, are outside the realm of science.

I think you are missing the point on replication. Tesla's work could be replicated. Some of it has. Some has not but doesn't mean it's not science, nor that it can't be replicated. Just means others were too ignorant to follow all of his discoveries.

In terms of impact, he's had a lot of impact on science, but maybe less than others....that's true.

His impact on the world is almost unparalleled. That is, of course, debatable but the modern world of the power grid, wireless communications, radar, the induction motor, remote control and various other things including some key components to computing have shaped the entire world we live in.

 

[randman]

Definitely and in defining how good or bad the man was relies a lot on disguising between the man and the myths. He was a good self promoter, in doing that you are going to struggle to get an investor interested in a new type of light bulb, but mention fly cars and some people are going to flock to the idea

People scoffed at over the horizon radar and so we didn't develop it until the 50s. People said ac/dc power violated the laws of physics as well. The truth is the things Tesla said he could do, demonstrated and so forth didn't violate the so-called laws of physics. People just refused to look at the system and things he was developing.

I, for one, believe he was correct on discovering non-Hertzian waves and that we could harness that for communications and wireless power, which really isn't just transmission of power alone but use of existing power via resonant waves to manipulate and harness existing fields. The earth and everything has power all around it. There is potential power in the vacuum even, but we haven't learned to tap into it.

Tesla said he had and that his experiments showed that.

Maybe one day we'll quit calling him a nutcase and actually follow-up on his work and develop a more efficient system for power and communications.

 

[Dinwar]

I think you are missing the point on replication. Tesla's work could be replicated. Some of it has. Some has not but doesn't mean it's not science, nor that it can't be replicated. Just means others were too ignorant to follow all of his discoveries.

A line you can continue until the end of time. At a certain point, the lack of successful reproductions of an experiment must suggest to any honest researcher that that original was not run as described in some way. Usually the error was honest, but not always.

And hey, if you believe in this so strongly, run the tests. Get the notes and do it. Prove us wrong. I've got no dog in this fight--electricity and I don't get along. I stick with rocks and fossils. I'm just suggesting that if you feel this strongly about the matter, prove it. That's the heart of science, after all.

His impact on the world is almost unparalleled. That is, of course, debatable but the modern world of the power grid, wireless communications, radar, the induction motor, remote control and various other things including some key components to computing have shaped the entire world we live in.

All of which were built on the groundwork laid by others, and none of which demonstrate his scientific abilities. As an ENGINEER, sure, I'll grant he may be in the top 10. Certainly the top 100. As a scientist? Until his experiments are replicated, he's not.

I consider him one of the great polymaths of that era. His PhD was in Astronomy but it was his contributions to meteorology and climatology that were profound. He pioneered the use of weather baloons and
was instrumental in determining the existence of the Jet Stream. His continental drift theory was indeed just a reiteration of ideas going back as far as Bacon in the 1600's. However, he was the first one to tie fossil evidence and geologic evidence together in a rational explanation of the observations.

Fair enough. I obviously haven't given the man enough credit. Not surprising--I mean, Heackel had a lot of good ideas, but all anyone ever hears about him is the few fraudulent drawings. We focus on the high-amplitude stuff, regardless of frequency.

And I should stress that I don't consider geophysicists of his day any better than him. I just question the validity of including a scientist on this list when their contribution was to present an idea that, when shown to be wrong, lead to advances in our knowledge. Obviously the rest of what you're saying makes that point irrelevant--the jet stream alone would be enough to include him on this list (it's instrumental to weather forecasting). At this point, it's more of a general question. I mean, there are certain fringe ideas that are wrong, but through proving them wrong science has advanced. Dolf Seilacher has made something of a name for himself doing this--when someone asks you a completely insane question that fits all the data but is obviously wrong, and you spend five or ten years trying to figure out HOW it's wrong, invert paleontologists call it "being Dolfed". Does that make one a great scientist? I mean, it's a MAJOR contribution to the field (paleontologists like to argue), but at the same time it's wrong, and everyone--including the guy asking the questions--knows it.

 

[randman]

At a certain point, the lack of successful reproductions of an experiment must suggest to any honest researcher that that original was not run as described in some way. Usually the error was honest, but not always.

No, that's only true if someone replicates an experiment, according to how it was done the first time, and the replication fails.

Just because the scientific community was and maybe is too biased and ignorant to even try doesn't make the original experiment and technology incorrect.

If earn a ton of money and have the time, would love to be involved in a project to dig into Tesla's technology, but can't do that right now. Maybe when the kids finish college and we pay off our debts.

Until his experiments are replicated, he's not.

Dinwar, you do realize the computer you are using right now utilyzes Tesla technology and that the power system you are using right now is Tesla's as well. Quit acting like none of his stuff has been replicated.

To my knowledge, everything anyone has done to replicate Tesla's work has been successful, at least in his lifetime. Not sure about some later work but some in defense circles stated that SDI and some elements of HAARP are based on Tesla's designs and theories. Gotta remember some items were classified.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Seymour Benzer pioneered molecular genetics and when he was done with that he invented behavioral genetics. He also likely invented the transistor as a graduate student but never published that work, the work he did publish led to others inventing the transistor.

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

 

[Dinwar]

Just because the scientific community was and maybe is too biased and ignorant to even try doesn't make the original experiment and technology incorrect.

Again, this is a defense you can hide behind until the end of time. Any failure is blamed on the biases of the researcher. Convenient for someone who holds to theories that aren't true.

Dinwar, you do realize the computer you are using right now utilyzes Tesla technology and that the power system you are using right now is Tesla's as well. Quit acting like none of his stuff has been replicated.

We're going back to our normal argument style: I say something, you deliberately misread it and argue against something that's not even close to the meaning of what I posted (funny how you're only ever pedantic like this when someone disagrees with you). Sorry, but I'm not interested--I get enough of that garbage in our discussions of evolution. Have fun tilting at strawmen without me.

 

[randman]

No hiding by me. Tesla's record is great. You are the one making phony claims and saying his work cannot be replicated.

Show me where Tesla's work has failed replication during his lifetime?

Can you do that?

 

[lionking]

Gee, lots of nominations. Would people like to say who would drop off my list (hey, it's my thread ) to include your favorite and why?

I'm also interested in comments on my inclusion of Laplace. I must admit that I've only recently read much about him.

 

[Westwall]

A line you can continue until the end of time. At a certain point, the lack of successful reproductions of an experiment must suggest to any honest researcher that that original was not run as described in some way. Usually the error was honest, but not always.

And hey, if you believe in this so strongly, run the tests. Get the notes and do it. Prove us wrong. I've got no dog in this fight--electricity and I don't get along. I stick with rocks and fossils. I'm just suggesting that if you feel this strongly about the matter, prove it. That's the heart of science, after all.

All of which were built on the groundwork laid by others, and none of which demonstrate his scientific abilities. As an ENGINEER, sure, I'll grant he may be in the top 10. Certainly the top 100. As a scientist? Until his experiments are replicated, he's not.

Fair enough. I obviously haven't given the man enough credit. Not surprising--I mean, Heackel had a lot of good ideas, but all anyone ever hears about him is the few fraudulent drawings. We focus on the high-amplitude stuff, regardless of frequency.

And I should stress that I don't consider geophysicists of his day any better than him. I just question the validity of including a scientist on this list when their contribution was to present an idea that, when shown to be wrong, lead to advances in our knowledge. Obviously the rest of what you're saying makes that point irrelevant--the jet stream alone would be enough to include him on this list (it's instrumental to weather forecasting). At this point, it's more of a general question. I mean, there are certain fringe ideas that are wrong, but through proving them wrong science has advanced. Dolf Seilacher has made something of a name for himself doing this--when someone asks you a completely insane question that fits all the data but is obviously wrong, and you spend five or ten years trying to figure out HOW it's wrong, invert paleontologists call it "being Dolfed". Does that make one a great scientist? I mean, it's a MAJOR contribution to the field (paleontologists like to argue), but at the same time it's wrong, and everyone--including the guy asking the questions--knows it.

I developed the list based on scientists who actually had a major impact on science that outlived them. All of these scientists were either the founders of their particular branch of science or altered the fundamental pardigms of the time. Most did both.

I too gave Wegener short shrift for a very long time, then for some reason I really looked into his accomplishments and was astonished he wasn't better known.

As far as your Dolfisms (is that a word?) go, I don't consider them the same way. Accidental discoveries based on years of faulty research based on faulty assumptions are happy occurences but if the research had been done properly the results would have shown up faster and scientific understanding would advance all that much faster.

 

[Westwall]

Gee, lots of nominations. Would people like to say who would drop off my list (hey, it's my thread ) to include your favorite and why?

I'm also interested in comments on my inclusion of Laplace. I must admit that I've only recently read much about him.

Laplace is an intersting inclusion. He was basically a cosmologist 200 years before that discipline existed. I didn't include him on my list as he didn't have a major effect beyond the French border. Were his work better known at the time we would probably be a further 20 to 40 years ahead technologically then we are. Sad that he wasn't better known. I have heard him referred to as the French Newton and I don't think that is unreasonable.

He was certainly the best of his era.