Your making very large leaps and bounds here. And misquoted a lot of what I said.
"Founder of quantum mechanics" - I didn't say founder. I said one of the founding members; Planck, de broglie, einstein, von Neumann. I don't see how quantum mechanics materializes without the foundation created by these thinkers.
> "list of only true scientists"
I didn't say list of true scientists. And you inserted 'only' as if I made the claim that this list is comprehensive (i.e. these are the only scientists that ever existed). But rather these scientists paved the way for a lot of scientific advancement in the last two centuries.
Lastly, which this one is more my fault - I clearly didn't explain my thought. Newton's association with calculus was to refute your claim that he only had an influence in the field of physics (he was the Lucasian professor of mathematics after all).
Alternatively, your "quotation" of founded (twice) is smug; and condescending. Further, none of this tit for tat banter is contributing to anything of real or inherent value. Perhaps our time is suited better on something else?
"Founder of quantum mechanics" - I didn't say founder. I said one of the founding members; Planck, de broglie, einstein, von Neumann. I don't see how quantum mechanics materializes without the foundation created by these thinkers.
> "list of only true scientists" I didn't say list of true scientists. And you inserted 'only' as if I made the claim that this list is comprehensive (i.e. these are the only scientists that ever existed). But rather these scientists paved the way for a lot of scientific advancement in the last two centuries.
Lastly, which this one is more my fault - I clearly didn't explain my thought. Newton's association with calculus was to refute your claim that he only had an influence in the field of physics (he was the Lucasian professor of mathematics after all).
Alternatively, your "quotation" of founded (twice) is smug; and condescending. Further, none of this tit for tat banter is contributing to anything of real or inherent value. Perhaps our time is suited better on something else?