Depression Forums
General => The Lounge => Science Discussion => Topic started by: Beetzart on August 14, 2012, 06:13:24 PM
-
Just a little thread about great scientists throughout history.
Boltzman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann
He was an incredible scientist, but sadly hanged himself because of depression.
-
I dont know many Beet but I have to mention Carl Sagan and Patrick Moore for bringing astronomy to the masses. Also a mention to Arthur C Clarke who wrote great fiction but was scientist at heart
-
I dont know many Beet but I have to mention Carl Sagan and Patrick Moore for bringing astronomy to the masses. Also a mention to Arthur C Clarke who wrote great fiction but was scientist at heart
-
Not sure if he's a scientist but Prof Brian Cox deserves a mention for bringing quantum physics and the wonders of the universe to the public in a reasonably-easy-to-understand way. Just wish he would stop grinning sometimes ::)
-
Now he is one guy I can watch and listen to. S x x x x
-
yes he qualifies I think as does David Attenborough. I enjoyed Wonders Of The Solar System with Brian Cox but he could have turned the background music down abit! It wasnt a D:Ream concert you know lol
-
Lol. X x
-
Zaf, definitely Brian Cox, he does a lot to explain science in lay terms. Also Stephen Hawking.
-
He certainly does Beet, and I totally agree about Stephen Hawking too
-
I think Copernicus should get a mention as he kick started science, or gave it some momentum to get going at least.
-
My vote goes to Brian Cox too, he is a great advert for his dentist =+-
-
Has anyone here listened to Neil Tyson deGrasse? He is one the most enthusiastic, animated, scientists out there. You can't help but love him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJjQMwEjC1I
-
This person is not a hero of science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ&feature=player_embedded
He provides very little in the way of evidence, more like just his opinions. Now look at him, he looks like he could be a very learned professor with his smart beard and large glasses. I mean if he was a scruffy chav in a tracksuit saying the same things we could all laugh, but this bloke has designed himself to stereotypically be like someone very serious and clever. This is to hoodwink unaware people.
At least his work got trashed by the critics and scientists.
-
Not very well delivered or at all convincing
-
my phone wont let me connect and watch the video. What does he say?
-
He is trying to disprove darwin's theory of evolution
-
He is saying evolution as described by Darwin is wrong, and the earth is probably not 4.5 billion years old. He believes there are human artefacts in coal seems, and coal can be made in a much shorter time then geologists tell us. In other words he is a failed scientist and just wanted to make his own reality. He has been called a contrarian because he just says the opposite of what science has discovered, yet still has several published books.
-
ah ok. I have come against this before a Creationism seminar in California. It just got silly. Why the Grand Canyon was formed very quickly as a result of lots of water after the Biblical flood and not over eons of time and erosion by water over millions of years.
-
The idea that animals could have evolved over millions of years in unthinkably stupid. This is what happened:
God made the world in seven days using his magical powers. He then decided to make some animals, but after a while he began to find them a little bit uncivilised (animals being rather filthy creatures). He then made a man in his own form, and men are not animals. However, the man got bored on his own, and so despite the fact that birds had already been invented by God, God had forgotten than he had done this and reinvented them again (see Genesis) to keep the man company. However, the man proved to be an ungrateful sod and he didn't appreciate these aerial acrobats at all, so God created an inferior version of the man called woman.
This all happened about 4 thousand years ago.
The problem with humans is that they misbehave and they refuse to obey his teachings. To kindly put them on the straight and narrow he has tried starving them, he has asked them to kill their own children to prove their allegiance to him (throwing them into fires being the preferred method),and he has introduced diseases - but they still just won't listen. Even Jesus, the son of God, (who was so powerful that he was capable of not being God but simultaneously was God - and so was partially his own father) was not capable of making people believe the teachings of the creator of the universe. The ignorant Romans executed him, but in doing so, the only achievement of these evil, sacrilegious, doubting fools was to create the worlds first Zombie. In the end Jesus went back to live in space, and he doesn't do much nowadays, but it is still polite to pay our respects.
God has now had to resort to communicating with people telepathically. They usually live in the United States but sometimes they live in other countries as well. God isn't a racist but he does favour the North Americans due to their superior neo-liberal economy, which God is in favour of. Using the wisdom that God gives them they set about creating world peace by starting wars. God famously spoke to George Bush in a dream and told him to invade Iraq. In biblical terms this does qualify George Bush as being a prophet, and indeed profit he did, and so we should heed his warnings. Fortunately, when the peace loving God fearing flock of the USA heard of this dream, they carried out Gods desire and sent weapons and soldiers to this region and now the world is a much better and safer place to live in.
By meddling in the sciences all you are doing is ignoring the obvious truth - that if you continue to read about Charles Darwin, an eternally burning hell awaits you, and I've heard that it stings.
-
Great post, Steve! $%$
Another non-hero of science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich
Even Einstein tried his 'experiments' and found nothing, claiming that 'he should adopt a stronger sense of scepticism'.
-
What do you think about the idea that some of his work was not scientific, such as the Freudian psychoanalysis work? Also integrating Marxism with psychoanalytical theory...this is about as un-scientific as you could get - would you not agree? Then look at some of the other things he did....he wasn't following scientific methodology at all.