Greatest Physicist Ever - Redux Discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Izzhov
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physicist
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of who the greatest physicist is, with participants sharing their opinions on various historical and contemporary figures in physics. The scope includes theoretical contributions, historical significance, and personal preferences, with a mix of humor and serious debate.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest figures like Archimedes, Emmy Noether, and Einstein, while others express surprise at the lack of votes for Einstein.
  • There is a humorous suggestion that Britney Spears could be considered a physicist, leading to a discussion on the absurdity of the topic.
  • Several participants note the absence of notable physicists such as Faraday, Gell-Mann, and Fermi from the discussion.
  • Some argue that the term "greatest" is subjective and lacks clear criteria, comparing it to choosing a favorite color.
  • One participant proposes that Newton's contributions are often overstated, suggesting that earlier civilizations had principles of calculus before him.
  • There is a metaphorical discussion about knowledge as a mountain, questioning the significance of different contributions to physics.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the value of ranking physicists, suggesting that no list will satisfy everyone.
  • Humor is present throughout, with playful banter about the absurdity of the topic and the nature of greatness in physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus on who the greatest physicist is, with multiple competing views and a recognition that the question itself may be inherently flawed.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the subjective nature of "greatest" and the absence of clear criteria for evaluating contributions, as well as the challenge of defining the scope of greatness in physics.

Who was the greatest physicist ever?

  • Isaac Newton

    Votes: 27 44.3%
  • Albert Einstein

    Votes: 12 19.7%
  • James Clerk Maxwell

    Votes: 7 11.5%
  • Niels Bohr

    Votes: 2 3.3%
  • Werner Heisenberg

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Galileo Galilei

    Votes: 4 6.6%
  • Richard Feynman

    Votes: 6 9.8%
  • Paul Dirac

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Erwin Schroedinger

    Votes: 2 3.3%
  • Ernest Rutherford

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    61
  • #91
Schrödinger's Dog said:
:smile: OK calm down I was only teasing really anyway, you just had on that, I am an authority head, so I was prodding you for giggles.

How dare you young whipper snapper! claim to be a scientist would you! Fetch my cane I'll lay about this young upstart see if I don't!

Look a scientist is just someone who uses scientific method, usually highly qualified, and a philosopher someone who likes to think about the more esoteric questions. I'm sure the kid wasn't suggesting that he was really a scientist or a philosopher although anyone can be a philosopher, but the ogre appears and swats the young impudent scamp for his precociousness :smile: you got to admit it's pretty amusing from my perspective.:-p :biggrin:

Then you must be easily amused.

Zz.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
ZapperZ said:
Then you must be easily amused.

Zz.

English humour it revolves around mockery, mostly of ourselves, but others are fair game too, it's particularly used when someone gets a little high and mighty or a little pompous, I wouldn't take it personally it's just our way :smile: trouble is some people think we're being offensive but we're not we're just messing for fun. No offence.
 
  • #93
Schrödinger's Dog said:
English humour it revolves around mockery, mostly of ourselves, but others are fair game too, it's particularly used when someone gets a little high and mighty or a little pompous, I wouldn't take it personally it's just our way :smile: trouble is some people think we're being offensive but we're not we're just messing for fun. No offence.

But that actually is even more insulting. You make some snide comment and then you tell me I shouldn't be offended because you were just "messing for fun". You can't have it both ways, nor can you control how *I* perceived it.

Just because there have been some folks dumb enough to let you get away with it before doesn't mean you can get away with that all the time.

Zz.
 
  • #94
ZapperZ said:
But that actually is even more insulting. You make some snide comment and then you tell me I shouldn't be offended because you were just "messing for fun". You can't have it both ways, nor can you control how *I* perceived it.

Just because there have been some folks dumb enough to let you get away with it before doesn't mean you can get away with that all the time.

Zz.

I can see you don't take to English humour, I apologise if there was any offence, I won't make the same mistake in future. Sincerely I apologise. It's hard to interpret who will take our sense of humour, I'm sorry you don't find light hearted mockery appropriate in dialogue, I'll be sure to remember that. :frown: oops. :/

Do you really think though it's done to people who are dumb, why bother, they won't get the joke anyway?

And besides who the hell is dumb on this website, :biggrin: I've yet to meet anyone.

Again I'm sorry, I guess it's not well received to make fun of someone who is being a little pompous, sorry my mistake. And I really didn't mean to cause offence although I obviously did.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
46K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K