Talk:Timeline of scientific discoveries

175.100.136.254 (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)there was a time when Bhaskaracharya born in india Bhāskara, was an Indian mathematician and astronomer. He was born in Bijapur in modern Karnataka. Bhāskara and his works represent a significant contribution to mathematical and astronomical knowledge in the 12th century as per Wikipedia 12th century 1121 – Al-Khazini: variation of gravitation and gravitational potential energy at a distance; the decrease of air density with altitude Ibn Bajjah (Avempace): discovery of reaction (precursor to Newton's third law of motion) Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi (Nathanel): relationship between force and acceleration (a vague foreshadowing of a fundamental law of classical mechanics and a precursor to Newton's second law of motion) Averroes: relationship between force, work and kinetic energy

click here to have a look the name of bhaskara is absent in wikipedia

so i request to wikipedia please put his name

Probable bias in the timeline

This list does not state the landmarks of disciplines outside the Physical sciences. This page seems to assume that sciences means only Physical sciences like physics, chemistry etc.. and not disciplines like psychology, linguistics, neurosciences, cognitive sciences, sociobiology etc. Or may be we just need another all encompassing timeline, like a Timeline of landmarks in Human thought or a Timeline of Scientific thought. Robin klein 06:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right, of course. The list is in rather bad shape right now, and could do with a whole of lot expansion.--ragesoss 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Still true. 71.198.188.212 (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Quarks and the standard model

I've added the acceptance of quarks leading to the standard model, but without an exact date let alone a person. Any suggestions? Rjm at sleepers 08:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Ptolemy

Biblbroks has removed Ptolemy on the grounds that "the geocentric model isn't a discovery only a theory". The introduction says that the "timeline below shows the date of publication of major scientific theories". (My emphasis.) Ptolemy's geocentric model dominated European thought for hundreds of years, which seems "major" to me. If we are to remove theories that have been disproven, Coppernicus and Newton's laws of motion should go as well. What do others think? Rjm at sleepers 06:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Ptolemy and his model should stay in this timeline. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 12:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When removing Ptolemy's model I was guided solely by the title of the article. However, as said in the intro this timeline is by the definition the list of ... scientific theories also, argument for the inclusion of Ptolemy stands, especially because geocentric theory lasted long and was of great influence. So, I agree it was a major theory and it should be included. But, when readding to the article maybe some rewording could help the accuracy, because model isn't a theory after all. --Biblbroks's talk 20:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Rjm at sleepers 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this page should specify hypotheses as well as theories and discoveries. In fact, I think we really need to be rather general and say 'significant events'. A theory, though widely misunderstood, is generally considered to be an idea of some depth that has stood the test of time. Darwin, for example, had no theory of evolution, he wrote on the 'Origin of Species' which is quite a different matter. He did have what he stressed was a hypothesis, regarding evolution by pangenesis, which incorporated the inheritance of aquired characteristics - in other words, he actually did not have a theory of evolution such as we call 'Darwinian' today. One of the major elements in the modern synthesis of evolution was August Weismann's 'barrier', which he proposed dogmatically, and which remains dubious even today. No theory, no hypothesis even. Science is not as clear-cut as some would like to think. Then there are the 'laws', like 'Hooke's law', taught at school, but of dubious validity, and religious sounding in nature! Don't get me wrong, I'm a scientist through and through, but the truth is that science is far from sure how to define itself. --Memestream (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Occam's Razor

Is Occam's Razor really a scientific discovery? Isn't it more in the realm of logic, law, philosophy, and, in some cases, debate? It feels out-of-place on this article. Bulldog123 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See my section above regarding the unsatisfactory nature of the words 'theory' etc. I think Occams Razor deserves mention, as it is often quoted and hence is a significant concept. Perhaps that's what we should entitle this page - Timeline of scientific concepts, and then we allow for the fact that so many theories are superceded, which is an accepted part of the discipline we call science. --Memestream (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

2011 - CERN Breaks the speed of light using the large hadron collider disproving Einstein's theory of special relativity.

2011 - CERN Breaks the speed of light using the large hadron collider disproving Einstein's theory of special relativity.

That statement is not generally accepted by the science community. Science requires that experimental findings be tested, that the experiments be repeated more than once, closely monitored and retested again by others (ever heard of peer review?) under the same conditions before anything is accepted as fact, let alone as changing the established scientific theories which have all been repeatedly subjected to the same rigorous processes. The findings from this one experiment have not yet been tested, ie. the experiment has not been repeated or subjected to this rigorous testing process, so the findings are not scientific fact, they are speculation on the basis of one experiment.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2040735/Speed-light-experiments-baffling-result-Cern-Did-Einstein-wrong.html#ixzz1Z04hLYg4

It will be 20 years before that statement can be justifiably placed in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.150.186 (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely Fleming's discovery of penicillin should be in the 20th century's greatest discoveries? Huge implications to medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.97 (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Penicillin

Surely Fleming's discovery of penicilin should be listed in the 20th century discoveries? It had massive implications to Medicine and is essentially the foundation of a vast part of modern healthcare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.97 (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. --89.187.142.72 (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Nicola Tesla

Surely, Nicola Tesla deserves to be mentioned? He discovered the "rotating magnetic field" in 1882, alternating current (which shapes all of humanity today more than ANY other invention), the AC motor in 1887, his Tesla Coil in 1891, which in turn allowed him to invent radio in 1895 (awarded in 1943) and the first remote control drone in 1898, and wireless power transmission.

Tesla never invented any radio. He should not even be mentioned among those that helped to the development of radio.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.19.218.162 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Whoever inventioned the radio doesn't belong here but on this list: Timeline of historic inventions

--89.187.142.72 (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Are Inventions Discoveries?

Will Durant created a database and timeline of discoveries, but they included objects like the transistor, steam engine, printing press, etc. that have changed the planet. My question is: should those be included here, or should this list be merged with those in the other article Timeline of historic inventions? The interesting thing is that article has many of the same issues as this one ("who did what, when, where?"). Neither article seems to understand simultaneity, to wit China, Europe, Islamic Spain, etc. CAN all discover the same innovative breakthrough in similar time frames, making the issue an "and" rather than an "either/or." Pdecalculus (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)