Rank the top best scientists of all time. Of all time. [so far]

[theVOID]

We all forgot Tycho Brahe

[Anomalocaris]

As a geologist, while acknowledging that Hutton is the father of modern geology, I would replace Hutton with Charles Lyell. The reason being that while officially, Hutton is considered to be the father of modern geology because of his proposals on uniformitarianism, and his knowledge of geologic mapping, it was Lyell who popularized Hutton's methods and elaborated on them in a wide range of endeavors including the many geologic surveys he conducted which advanced our understanding of mineral resources and how to find them, his detailed studies of volcanoes which once and for all laid Neptunism to rest, and his remarkable studies in stratigraphy and glaciers. But it was his book "Principles of Geology" that did more to change the science of geology than anything that came before.

I would also add Alfred Wegener who came up with the idea of Continental drift and plate tectonics.

Alfred Wegener got lucky with a wild guess scenario for which he could not provide any plausible mechanism.

The person who formulated a credible concept of plate tectonics with supporting evidence of the mechanism deserving of serious consideration was John Tuzo Wilson. It seems doubtful to me that Wagener's ideas had any critical effect on Wilson. Tuzo wilson amassed all the evidence of mechanism he needed to point him independently to this conclusion before he arrived at the effect.

In any case, Plate tectonics is an outcome of modern geology, not the foundation of modern geology. The foundation of geology ought to work whereever there is geology, like on the moon or mars, or venus. This Hutton and Lyell's concept will do. Plate tectonics is merely what the science Hutton and Lyell had created had allowed us to discover on earth. Plate tectonics will have limited application on the moon, for example.

---

We all forgot Tycho Brahe

Mere stamp collector.

[Autumnlicious]

The person who formulated a concept of plate tectonics deserving of serious consideration was John Tuzo Wilson. It seems doubtful to me that Wagner's ideas had any critical effect on Wilson. He amazed the evidence of mechanism before he arrived at the effect.

In any case, Plate tectonics is an outcome of modern geology, not the foundation of modern geology. The foundation of geology ought to work whereever there is geology, like on the moon or mars, or venus. This Hutton and Lyell's concept will do. Plate tectonics is merely what the science Hutton and Lyell had created had allowed us to discover on earth. Plate tectonics will have limited application on the moon, for example.

Tectonic activity is indicative of an object with a functioning geomagnetic dynamo. You know, the thing that keeps us alive from being blasted into oblivion by a bombardment the sun's light matter.

So actually, plate tectonics work anywhere.

Also, plate tectonics explain any terrestrial planet with a geodynamo must have a molten core, as the core depends on the (incredibly slow) convection of the continental plates.

This is from what I've learned in astrophysics.

[Anomalocaris]

Tectonic activity is indicative of an object with a functioning geomagnetic dynamo. You know, the thing that keeps us alive from being blasted into oblivion by a bombardment the sun's light matter.

So actually, plate tectonics work anywhere.

Also, plate tectonics explain any terrestrial planet with a geodynamo must have a molten core, as the core depends on the (incredibly slow) convection of the continental plates.

This is from what I've learned in astrophysics.

No, plate tectonics is not indicative of dynamo, and dynamo doesn't happen everywhere.

First of all, let's separate tectonics from plate tectonics. Tectonics is any process which changes the structural geology of a planet or moon. Plate tectonics is a particular style of tectonics involving large scale horizontal movements of segment of crust of a planet driven by convection of the planet's mantle. Tectonics happens on every large body with a solid surface. Plate tectonics is so far as we know for certain unique to the earth.

Second, plate tectonics is not directly related to geomagnetic dynamo. Instead plate tectonics is related to a thin, lubricated planetary crust and an active global system of mantle convection powered by a hot core. Geomagnetic dynamo involves the differential rotation of liquid and solid layers within the planet's hot core. A planet with a hot core capable of powering mantle convection that drives active plate tectonics need not have differential rotation within that core to power a geomagnetic dynamo. For example, Venus rotates very slowly and probably as a result has no differential rotation in its core. In any case it has no detectable geomagnetic dynamo and no global magnetosphere. But its core is thought to still be just as hot as earth's core and hot enough to power comparable mantle convention. Venus has no plate tectonics, but that probably has to do with its lack of ocean to lubricate subduction zones rather than lack of convection or thin crust. Instead Venus may have a style of intermittent catastrophic volcanic tectonics where the crust remains appearently stable for hundreds of million of years, then completely break up and sink into the mantle, leaving the planet with a completely new surface made of exposed mantle material in a short amount of time.

Mercury, on the other hand, probably has differential rotation in its hot core to power a geomegnetic dynamo since it has a global magnetosphere. But its uncertain whether it still has mantle convection. In any case its planetary crust is thick and exhibit no evidence of plate tectonics. There is tectonics on Mercury to be sure, as evidenced by a global system of thrust faults, but no plate tectonics as would have been evidenced by spreading centers and subduction zones.

[theVOID]

You're one freakily smart fuck, Chuck.

[Autumnlicious]

Thanks for sorting that out Chuck.

[franca]

---

Sir Isaac Newton's work represents some of the greatest contributions to science ever made by an individual. Most notably, Newton derived the Law of Universal Gravitation, invented the branch of mathematics called Calculus, and performed experiments investigating the nature of light and color. He also was scholar of the Bible and devoted much time to its study.

Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton's home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.

A scientist friend of Newton's came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship.

"Oh My! What an exquisite thing this is!" Newton's friend exclaimed. "Who made it?"

Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."

Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said, "Oh? Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?"

Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone, "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has."

"You must think I am a fool!" the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is."

Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?

adapted from Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story (from the book: The Truth: God or evolution?, by Marshall and Sandra Hall, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI)

---

[Polaris]

The top five scientists I would not be able to name because history does not prop them up.

[Jackalope]

The top five scientists I would not be able to name because history does not prop them up.

Might be interesting to discuss, particularly if you can make a good case for your choices.

Since the thread is already necro'd, I'll post my top 7 (off the top of my head, in no particular order):

Pasteur - for his contributions to human knowledge that made a huge impact on our quality (not to mention quantity) of life.
Galileo - for his role in the Scientific Revolution
Einstein - for his theory of General Relativity, which sparked a revolution in modern physics.
Darwin - for his dedication to field work which culminated in his theory of Natural Selection
Aristotle - for his long-lived influence
Turing - for pioneering work in computer science
Newton - for "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica", one of the most influential texts in the history of science, if not the most influential.

Honorable mentions:

Curie
Tesla
Bohr
Planck
da Vinci
Faraday
Hawking
Kepler
Maxwell
Copernicus

Honorable mention goes out to Sagan for his public outreach.

Damn, there are just too many to list.