Who is your favorite Physicist?

Forums: Science, Physics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I personally always enjoy reading the works of Richard Feynman others spark my interest although I think he has done a great amount of very intriguing as well as Brilliant work.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 14 • Views: 22,801 • Replies: 708
Topic Closed

[+5] - maxdancona - 07/21/2017Is it really necessary for people to act like assholes on a lighthearted thread like this? Geez.
[+4] - rosborne979 - 07/20/2017Feynman is a good choice. Lawrence Krause is also fun to listen to.
[+4] - centrox - 07/21/2017[quote="MKABRSTI"]You are qualified to interrogate people who ask simple questions of opinion? Please explain how that is. [/quote] You declared that Hawking was a "puppet". I...
[+4] - centrox - 08/01/2017[quote="layman"]Ad nauseum[/quote] Did you teach yourself Latin as well?
[+3] - maxdancona - 07/26/2017Galileo took an important step in the struggle of evidence based science to free itself from the confines of philosophy. And Galileo paid the price and should be respected for that. When he said...
[+3] - maxdancona - 07/26/2017Of course the experimental proof of Newton's understanding that gravity explained the motion of orbiting bodies came in the 1700s. A farmer just out side of Boston read Newton's explanation that a...
[+3] - Olivier5 - 07/27/2017[quote="maxdancona"] I don't know what "history as a science" even means. History is not a set of testable facts. I am not sure this point is worth discussing.[/quote] The...
[+3] - Olivier5 - 07/28/2017You're confusing me with a creationist or something. I'm a scientific thoroughbred, trained in mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. I don't need a lecture on the power of science. I...
[+3] - Olivier5 - 07/28/2017I agree the results are phenomenal. But it does not follow that the process or its results are a-ideological. Replicable experiments are possible in some sciences, and very powerful, but they...
[+3] - fresco - 07/30/2017(.....[i]shaking head in disbelief.....[/i]...) If you are too dumb to see that the words 'shore' and 'ship' already encapsulate a preferred observational reference frame then that would...

View best answer, chosen by MKABRSTI

@MKABRSTI,

Feynman is a good choice. Lawrence Krause is also fun to listen to.

2 Replies

@MKABRSTI,

Although more of a jack-of-all trades than a physicist, per se, Isaac Asimov is brilliant, entertaining, and well-educated, and has written some interesting "for the layman" books on physics.

I agree with Feynman, though.

It sure aint Hawkings.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

I think I've come across some things about Lawrence in a couple books can't remember off the top of my head exactly what but the name sounds very familiar I just looked him up & I'm definitely going look more into his studies. Thanks for your answer.

0 Replies

@layman,

I just yahoooed Issac going to look more into his works for sure, never even heard of him before, Interesting guy for sure from what I saw I did know a couple people who went to Boston University when I lived in that area.

I agree with your aspect on Hawkings, theoretically I've came to the conclusion in the past few months that it is very probable that Hawkings is a puppet.

Thanks for the input.

1 Reply

@MKABRSTI,

MKABRSTI wrote:

I agree with your aspect on Hawkings, theoretically I've came to the conclusion in the past few months that it is very probable that Hawkings is a puppet.

You are qualified to judge the former Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University? Please explain how that is. Also, how, if you are, you can't spell his name.

1 Reply

Isn't judging a physicist on their prose style in popular-science writing a bit like judging a chemist on their skill at hockey?

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

It sure aint Hawkings.

Who is that?

1 Reply

@centrox,

centrox wrote:

Isn't judging a physicist on their prose style in popular-science writing a bit like judging a chemist on their skill at hockey?

However, if I were asked to do so, I might put forward George Gamow. Also, although some of what he wrote goes right over my head, enough doesn't to make David Bohm a candidate.

1 Reply

@centrox,

centrox wrote:

Isn't judging a physicist on their prose style in popular-science writing a bit like judging a chemist on their skill at hockey?

The question is "who is your favorite?". That means I can judge by whatever criteria I like. There are very few people here who can judge any Physicist since Newton on the Physics they actually did. How many people have read any Physics papers from anyone on this list?

I have to go with Feynman. Not only did he do great work in Physics (I have read papers he wrote), he was also a great prose writer, an advocate for science, and a superb teacher.

1 Reply

An old boyfriend.
Live with it..

1 Reply

@ossobucotemp,

Don't tell me you dated Feynman Wink

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Nah, but he was pretty smart.. and took me to hear great music. I've noticed people who get physics also get music, by and large.

1 Reply

@centrox,

centrox wrote:

layman wrote:
It sure aint Hawkings.

Who is that?

My bad. I meant Steve Hawkingson, some spastic physicist that maybe you haven't heard of.

0 Replies

@ossobucotemp,

Einstein said that if he hadn't been a physicist he would have been a musician. He said he Daydreams in music and reflects on his life in music.
At any rate, I think Einstein was a well-balanced person, and the world may have missed out on who could have been a great composer.

0 Replies

My favoruite is Niels Bohr. Not only did he appreciate the inextricability of 'observer and observed', but we may be able to account for much of his creative rationality on his interest in poetic language.

0 Replies

I also like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He has taken an important role in bridging the gap between real science and the public. And he has done so without dumbing down the science.

He is scientifically brilliant, personable, and he is a good at explaining complicated topics in a way that is both meaningful and accurate.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I also like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He has taken an important role in bridging the gap between real science and the public. And he has done so without dumbing down the science.

He is scientifically brilliant, personable, and he is a good at explaining complicated topics in a way that is both meaningful and accurate.

In the vein of Carl Sagan, eh? Isaac Asimov, who I mentioned before, was, for many years, the head of MENSA. He came to dislike the outfit and eventually quit, saying they were all "brain-proud."

But that's not to say he wasn't aware of his own extraordinary IQ. Surprisingly (to me), he said Sagan was one of a very few people that he thought was smarter than he was.

0 Replies

@centrox,

You are qualified to interrogate people who ask simple questions of opinion? Please explain how that is.

1 Reply

@MKABRSTI,

MKABRSTI wrote:

You are qualified to interrogate people who ask simple questions of opinion? Please explain how that is.

You declared that Hawking was a "puppet". I am curious to know why. If you cannot say why, you were just talking out of your ass.

3 Replies

Who is your favorite Physicist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know