Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Bill Nye (he is a scientist, right? TV didn't lie to me, did it?)
Stephen Hawking
Michio Kaku if Bill Nye gets tossed out
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
I'd say research, being published, but then those guys could fall into that as well. I guess what it just comes down to, is anyone who runs an experiment a scientist? I can't say that there's any real genuine inspiration coming from MythBusters, it's mostly entertainment. Damn good entertainment, but it's hardly frontier research.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
Newton
Darwin, although could debate more biologist,
Einstein
to go with the obvious
Desktop: Zotac 1080 TI, I7 7700k, 16gb Ram, 256gb SSD + 1TB HDD
Laptop: Zotac 2070 MaxQ, I7 8750, 32gb RAM, 500gb SSD + 2TB SSD
Main Game: Warcraft Classic
Haters gonna hate
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
Yeah but even that Cosmetologist is improving upon something. Not just recreating what's been done before.
Blowing up a latrine isn't exactly scientific, it's just awesome. Now if they were trying to create a brand new explosive to blow up latrines...then I'd have to rethink that.
Last edited by Tradewind; 2012-10-10 at 09:31 PM.
Lol, everyone knows Hawking.
Einstein, Oppenheimer, Vaun Braun.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
Schrodinger's Cat is not directly related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it's more to do with the inability to measure a result given a random event as opposed to Heisenberg's relating to the inability to measure both momentum and position simultaneously of a particle. The box is a thought experiment surrounding a total lack of observation leading to both results being simultaneously true, versus Uncertainty Principle being that the moment you take the measurement, you have affected the system and cannot measure the other with any accuracy without the first measurement now being untrue.
Which leads to my favorite physics joke...Why are Physicists bad at sex? Because when they find the position, they can't work out the momentum and when they do find the momentum, they've lost the position.
Last edited by Tradewind; 2012-10-10 at 09:41 PM.
I only know two.
Stephen Hawking
Michio Kaku
I had to check the spelling on Kaku, so I knew 1,5 famous living scientists. I know of Hawking since, well, he's pretty much our times Einstein, and I know of Kaku since he really likes that camera, and appears basically everywhere and many science-type series that I follow. He even appears in fictive stuff (like the science behind Mass Effect, and stuff like that).
Stephen Hawking, the only scientist you need! :P
I wouldn't consider Richard Dawkins a scientist... He's more of a philosopher.
deGrasse Tyson
Cox
Hawking
1) Load the amount of weight I would deadlift onto the bench
2) Unrack
3) Crank out 15 reps
4) Be ashamed of constantly skipping leg day
Scientists aren't famous anymore because of the concept of team effort and the fact that cutting edge science doesn't have direct affects on our lives - same could be said for sociologists, psychologists and other soft sciences.
They do very important things but they generally work for larger corporations and are often mixed in with engineers and technicians to make it useful.
It's a shame, we need more famous scientists for actually doing proper science to encourage younger generations, but being a scientist is comparably easy to being a top level athlete so they get paid a lot more.
In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
I don't think you could find anyone who has even a modest interest in science that couldn't name these guys right off the top of their head:
Stephen Hawking
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Bill Nye
Well that's not exactly what they did, they won the Nobel for creating means for us to measure quantum states of particles, but these are methods that have been in practice now since the 90s if not earlier (Wineland's methods for example). It's more to do with the ideas of superposition and in-determination as opposed to uncertainty principle. Things like quantum spin etc.
As is my understanding anyway, gonna read more...
Last edited by Tradewind; 2012-10-10 at 10:41 PM.