Our World has seen a lot of great Scientists How would you rate them.
I am mainly considering Physics Scientists.

Just tell me Which are the best Scientists you liked and why you liked
them.

Here are the Scientist I liked the Best.

1. Best of All I think is Newton.
----------------------------------------------

He gave laws of Motion and Told about Gravity. So Most of the Weapons
work on his principles. Space Missions need Newtons Laws of Gravity.
And Modern weapons like Missiles, Tanks, Guns all work based on Newton
Laws.

2nd Best: Faraday
-----------------------------

He gave us Light and Electricity. So all Fans, Coolers, Machines that
work on Electricity and give us so much Comfort are all because of
Faraday.

3rd James Watt
----------------------------

He was a young boy and found Steam could be used to drive Trains. So
initial locomotives worked because of him. And all transportation we
see arround started by ideas of this Brilliant Boy.

4th Archimedes
----------------------------

He was born in 212 BC but was having strong Brain and discovered
things which even people in 20th century cannot think about.

He was killed by a soldier when he was researching something.

A Roman soldier commanded him to come and meet General Marcellus but
he declined, saying that he had to finish working on the problem. The
soldier was enraged by this, and killed Archimedes with his sword.
Plutarch also gives a lesser-known account of the death of Archimedes
which suggests that he may have been killed while attempting to
surrender to a Roman soldier. According to this story, Archimedes was
carrying mathematical instruments, and was killed because the soldier
thought that they were valuable items

5th Galilio
------------------

He was a great Scientist and he found a lot of new things in
Astronomy. His advances made us know about the Earth and other planets
better. His Theories were not Liked by the Church and Church ordered
him in Prision for rest of his life. Because Church was not accepting
his theories and do not want the new theories to be known by people.

Church said Earth is in Center of Universe and Sun and all planets
revolve arround the Earth. But Galilio was not agreeing with that So
he was given Life imprisionment at his old age.

6th The Einstine
--------------------------

He made such complex theories that even todays people are having pain
in understanding his theories. But still he was a good Mathematician.
His theories were proved correct on most occasions. But still there
are a few faults in his theory and todays Scientists are finding
better ways using modern ideas like Quantum Mechanics.

So, This is how I grade the Best Scientists of the World.

These are my preferences. What do you think. Whom do you think is the
best Scientist and is there someone whom I am missing?

Bye
Sanny

Sanny wrote:

These are my preferences. What do you think. Whom do you think is the
best Scientist and is there someone whom I am missing?

I agree that Newton was smarter than Einstein. Einstein made effective
use of mathematical tools brought to his attention, particularly by his
friend, Marcel Grossman.

Newton had to forge the tools to study motion de novo. So he invented
his version of calculus.

I doubt that Einstein could have done the work of Gauss, Riemann,
Levi-Civita AND done the physics too.

Bob Kolker

On May 31, 6:08 am, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Sanny wrote:

These are my preferences. What do you think. Whom do you think is the
best Scientist and is there someone whom I am missing?

I agree that Newton was smarter than Einstein. Einstein made effective
use of mathematical tools brought to his attention, particularly by his
friend, Marcel Grossman.

Newton had to forge the tools to study motion de novo. So he invented
his version of calculus.

I doubt that Einstein could have done the work of Gauss, Riemann,
Levi-Civita AND done the physics too.

Bob Kolker

Intellectual cartels make or break whomever. The public image of
whomever is purely cultivated by whatever the intellectual cartel
wishes to accomplish, and under the cloak or name of whomever doesn't
really matter as long as it sticks and ultimately gives their
published notions the kind of worship that makes their cartel into
happy campers.
.. - Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:



Intellectual cartels make or break whomever. The public image of
whomever is purely cultivated by whatever the intellectual cartel
wishes to accomplish, and under the cloak or name of whomever doesn't
really matter as long as it sticks and ultimately gives their
published notions the kind of worship that makes their cartel into
happy campers.
. - Brad Guth

More crackpot conspiracy theories from our very own Brad.

If there was a Cartel, then how did Einstein ever get published in the
first place?

Bob Kolker

On 31 May, 13:28, Sanny wrote:
Our World has seen a lot of great Scientists How would you rate them.
I am mainly considering Physics Scientists.

Just tell me Which are the best Scientists you liked and why you liked
them.

Here are the Scientist I liked the Best.

1. Best of All I think is Newton.
----------------------------------------------

He gave laws of Motion and Told about Gravity. So Most of the Weapons
work on his principles. Space Missions need Newtons Laws of Gravity.
And Modern weapons like Missiles, Tanks, Guns all work based on Newton
Laws.

2nd Best: Faraday
-----------------------------

He gave us Light and Electricity. So all Fans, Coolers, Machines that
work on Electricity and give us so much Comfort are all because of
Faraday.

3rd James Watt
----------------------------

He was a young boy and found Steam could be used to drive Trains. So
initial locomotives worked because of him. And all transportation we
see arround started by ideas of this Brilliant Boy.

4th Archimedes
----------------------------

He was born in 212 BC but was having strong Brain and discovered
things which even people in 20th century cannot think about.

He was killed by a soldier when he was researching something.

A Roman soldier commanded him to come and meet General Marcellus but
he declined, saying that he had to finish working on the problem. The
soldier was enraged by this, and killed Archimedes with his sword.
Plutarch also gives a lesser-known account of the death of Archimedes
which suggests that he may have been killed while attempting to
surrender to a Roman soldier. According to this story, Archimedes was
carrying mathematical instruments, and was killed because the soldier
thought that they were valuable items

5th Galilio
------------------

He was a great Scientist and he found a lot of new things in
Astronomy. His advances made us know about the Earth and other planets
better. His Theories were not Liked by the Church and Church ordered
him in Prision for rest of his life. Because Church was not accepting
his theories and do not want the new theories to be known by people.

Church said Earth is in Center of Universe and Sun and all planets
revolve arround the Earth. But Galilio was not agreeing with that So
he was given Life imprisionment at his old age.

6th The Einstine
--------------------------

He made such complex theories that even todays people are having pain
in understanding his theories. But still he was a good Mathematician.
His theories were proved correct on most occasions. But still there
are a few faults in his theory and todays Scientists are finding
better ways using modern ideas like Quantum Mechanics.

So, This is how I grade the Best Scientists of the World.

These are my preferences. What do you think. Whom do you think is the
best Scientist and is there someone whom I am missing?

Maxwell, definitely. And possibly Lavoisier.

Robert J. Kolker wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 09:08:54 -0400:

Sanny wrote:

These are my preferences. What do you think. Whom do you think is the
best Scientist and is there someone whom I am missing?

I agree that Newton was smarter than Einstein.

There was a recent poll about that and Newton won of course :-)

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1515693.htm

http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=3880

A popular phrase is saying, "there was many Einsteins but only a Newton".

Still Einstein is very popular between public because of the 20th
marketing around him. It is just a good business $$$ :-)

But recent advances in research are proving Newton picture to be much
more close to Nature than traditionally believed. Some recent works have
proved Maxwell and Einstein to be wrong about Newtonian action at a
distance

E.g. from

Action at a distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell equations: The
basis and application of the separated-potentials method. 1996: Phys.
Rev. E 53, 5373. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.

(\blockquote
In other words, the new concept states that there is a simultaneous and
independent coexistence of Newton [Coulomb]
instantaneous long-range (NILI) and Faraday-Maxwell short-range
interactions (FMSI) which cannot be reduced to
each other.
)

And more advanced works now under development are proving Einstein
picture about Nature deeply flawed.

Einstein made effective
use of mathematical tools brought to his attention, particularly by his
friend, Marcel Grossman.

Yes, and when the math was too difficult for his colleague Grossman,
Einstein asked for assistance to Hilbert :-)


--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org

knucmo wrote:

Maxwell, definitely. And possibly Lavoisier.

Maxwell (by way of beefing up Faraday's ideas) introduced the concept of
the field. Prior to that, forces were conceived of as being point to
point interactions.

Bob Kolker

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:


But recent advances in research are proving Newton picture to be much
more close to Nature than traditionally believed. Some recent works have
proved Maxwell and Einstein to be wrong about Newtonian action at a
distance

Newtonian (classical) mechanics has been falsified by experiment.
Newton's concept of time and space are incorrect which is why his
physics is wrong.

Einstein's contribution was to fix mechanics so that it became Lorentz
Invariant.

Bob Kolker

On May 31, 6:39*am, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

Intellectual cartels make or break whomever. *The public image of
whomever is purely cultivated by whatever the intellectual cartel
wishes to accomplish, and under the cloak or name of whomever doesn't
really matter as long as it sticks and ultimately gives their
published notions the kind of worship that makes their cartel into
happy campers.
. - Brad Guth

More crackpot conspiracy theories from our very own Brad.

If there was a Cartel, then how did Einstein ever get published in the
first place?

Bob Kolker

Even if he is a crackpot he may sometimes point to truth. This enquiry
about what is best, raises the issue of what better and worse mean. Is
it like a question of what music is better, and if so this is a fuzzy
issue.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically,
this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the
character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her
actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the
person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be
evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is
making (or presenting). ...The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind)
is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a
person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity
of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html


The Seven Criteria of a Value

In order for something to be defined as a value, it must satisfy all
of the following criteria:

1. It must be prized and cherished.

2. It must be chosen from among alternatives.

3. It must be chosen freely, without coercion.

4. It must be chosen after thoughtful consideration of the
consequences of each alternative, not impulsively, and after careful
critical thinking.

5. We must be willing to publicly affirm it.

6. We must act on it, and act on it repeatedly.

7. It must be consistent with the other values we profess or claim to
hold.

http://valuesrealization.org/
dr_sidney_simon_bio.html
http://www.simonworkshops.com/

Values Declaration Table
http://tinyurl.com/c110

Values Clarification
http://www.winona.msus.edu/stress/values.htm

Handling Anger on the Road to Connectedness
http://www.rowecenter.org/schedule/2003/sidsimon.html

Value judgements

The discovery of the pleasure centres in the brain has fundamental
consequences for philosophy and practical affairs. It influences our
ideas about the aims of human actions, which are basic to all social,
political, and moral theories. It is not possible any longer to
consider that human aims and values are set by some transcendent,
intuitive process that is as Wittgenstein put it 'not in the world'.

We know now that they are basically regulated by the organization and
activities of certain parts of the brain, however much they may be
complicated and varied by culture and experience. Some recent
philosophers have accordingly changed ground from the attack on
naturalism, and they see the problem rather as a need to find out

what is the special
character of statements
about values.

It may help to discuss them. One way of putting it is that if value
statements are accepted by the listener it is implied that he will do
something. Some philosophers have compared statements of value to
imperatives, and this agrees with our idea that decisions about value
spring from the effort to meet needs.

Value judgements include
statements about what is
good and what people
ought to do.

They contrast with statements
of fact, whose acceptance
does not (necessarily)
entail action.

'It is raining' is merely factual. 'You ought not to hit that child'
implies a value judgement. One way of putting this is that value
statements are prescriptive, not purely descriptive (Hare 1963).

Another terminology is that;

value statements are practical,
while purely factual statements
are theoretical (Quinton 1973).

The great question is then, can we find a basis for prescriptive
statements in descriptive ones? Broadly speaking naturalists hold that
you can and antinaturalists still maintain that you cannot. Hare says,
for example,

'If asked why are strawberries good you can say they taste nice and
are sweet, but this does not define goodness.' Moore's way of putting
it was, 'If I am asked what is good my answer is that good is good and
that is the end of the matter.'

Similarly, as he says, one cannot define yellowness—yellow is yellow.
But how could one describe it except as that which is experienced with
light of a certain wavelength? Instead of trying to define yellowness
we search for the conditions outside and inside the body in which we
experience it. The whole of physics consists in making such enquiries.
Similarly we can look for the conditions that we associate with
goodness both outside and inside.

Quinton's reply to Hare's challenge about the strawberries is that by
strawberries are good (we mean) they belong to the class of fruit that
most people enjoy. He also says:

Most of the judgements of value about which there is some sort of
consensus of opinion are just what they would be if to ascribe value
to something were to assert that it is such as to give satisfaction to
people in general in the long run (p. 366).

To evaluate something is to say something about its capacity for
giving satisfaction. This of course is a controversial position, to
which many philosophers have objected, and we shall have to take a lot
of trouble to defend it, especially when we come to consider
judgements about ethics and morals. The point is that the biologist
sees that at least part of the basis of judgements of value lies in
the fact that all living actions are directed towards aims or
objectives, which are determined by their fundamental programs. The
programs we have inherited tell us to continue to promote life. Every
creature organizes its activities so as to attempt to follow this
instruction, though it may interpret it in such a manner that its
actions even lead to its own individual death.

If we can show that in every human being there are appetitive
mechanisms at work in all the programs of the brain, then surely we
can no longer continue to hold that 'good is good is the end of the
matter'. These systems provide the stimulants for all the aims of self-
maintenance that constitute living. J. S. Mill's thesis that pleasure
alone is the object of desire is an understatement. All cerebral
operations are related in some way to the set of standards and aims
dictated initially by our genes. But of course the cerebral programs
that we learn are so immensely complicated that they may seem to show
little connection with the basic standards set by the genes and the
hypothalamus. It is characteristic of humans that they learn to obtain
satisfaction in many different ways. But if the reward centres are not
working even the most refined cultural or religious programs act in
vain. The individual becomes unhappy and depressed, useless to himself
and others and, ultimately, suicidal.

Many people have a different and less complicated sort of 'belief
about human values, relating them to a divine source. Goodness is what
God wills us to do, as he has shown in the Scriptures and life of,
say, Christ, Buddha, or Mahomet. All human beliefs are to be respected
and studied, but when we look at religious beliefs we shall find that
they too are the product of people, which have involved action by many
parts of their brains including the reward centres we have been
discussing. This does not mean that we shall find them ultimately
either right or wrong, there is very little we can say about
ultimates. But we can now say something about the origins of human
beliefs just as we can about the origins of our desires and fears.
They are all the products of our human nature and the complicated
cultural conditions that this nature has brought about. I am claiming
that we are more likely to reach useful and satisfactory conclusions
by considering this knowledge about origins than by assuming that our
values are set by a divinely endowed inner imperative.

We now know that satisfaction and happiness depend upon the proper
functioning of certain reward centres in the brain. If these are not
working well, no actions, or indeed thoughts, will produce
satisfaction or happiness. These areas are necessary for satisfactory
individual and social life, though not of course sufficient in
themselves. This does not tell us that happiness is in the
hypothalamus or that it is noradrenaline—we all know that it is simply
happiness just as yellow is yellowness. What we now know is a great
deal more about its origins and how to obtain it. It may well be
objected that there is nothing new in all this, everyone knows that
human beings are influenced by needs and desires and seek happiness.
What is new is the knowledge of the unity of the whole brain program,
and the part that the centres that generate needs play in it. Already
with still imperfect knowledge we can see something of the relations
between the operations of the hypothalamus and basal forebrain centres
and the frontal areas of the cortex. Together these set the 'tone' of
operations of the parts of the cortex involved in even the most
abstract operations of thinking.

Programs of the brain.
J. Z. Young 1978
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198575459/

To your excellent list of historical "best", I would
add the recently deceased John Archibald Wheeler.
His greatest fame I guess was his naming of black holes
"black holes". He was also a great teacher and writer.
More difficult is the naming of contemporaries.

All of those you named are outstanding. Especially Faraday.

On Sat, 31 May 2008 05:28:18 -0700 (PDT), Sanny wrote:

Our World has seen a lot of great Scientists How would you rate them.
I am mainly considering Physics Scientists.

Just tell me Which are the best Scientists you liked and why you liked
them.

Here are the Scientist I liked the Best.

1. Best of All I think is Newton.
----------------------------------------------

He gave laws of Motion and Told about Gravity. So Most of the Weapons
work on his principles. Space Missions need Newtons Laws of Gravity.
And Modern weapons like Missiles, Tanks, Guns all work based on Newton
Laws.

2nd Best: Faraday
-----------------------------

He gave us Light and Electricity. So all Fans, Coolers, Machines that
work on Electricity and give us so much Comfort are all because of
Faraday.

3rd James Watt
----------------------------

He was a young boy and found Steam could be used to drive Trains. So
initial locomotives worked because of him. And all transportation we
see arround started by ideas of this Brilliant Boy.

4th Archimedes
----------------------------

He was born in 212 BC but was having strong Brain and discovered
things which even people in 20th century cannot think about.

He was killed by a soldier when he was researching something.

A Roman soldier commanded him to come and meet General Marcellus but
he declined, saying that he had to finish working on the problem. The
soldier was enraged by this, and killed Archimedes with his sword.
Plutarch also gives a lesser-known account of the death of Archimedes
which suggests that he may have been killed while attempting to
surrender to a Roman soldier. According to this story, Archimedes was
carrying mathematical instruments, and was killed because the soldier
thought that they were valuable items

5th Galilio
------------------

He was a great Scientist and he found a lot of new things in
Astronomy. His advances made us know about the Earth and other planets
better. His Theories were not Liked by the Church and Church ordered
him in Prision for rest of his life. Because Church was not accepting
his theories and do not want the new theories to be known by people.

Church said Earth is in Center of Universe and Sun and all planets
revolve arround the Earth. But Galilio was not agreeing with that So
he was given Life imprisionment at his old age.

6th The Einstine
--------------------------

He made such complex theories that even todays people are having pain
in understanding his theories. But still he was a good Mathematician.
His theories were proved correct on most occasions. But still there
are a few faults in his theory and todays Scientists are finding
better ways using modern ideas like Quantum Mechanics.

So, This is how I grade the Best Scientists of the World.

These are my preferences. What do you think. Whom do you think is the
best Scientist and is there someone whom I am missing?

Bye
Sanny