Genedoc said:
There were hugely important discoveries that predated and laid the foundation for both of those.
Neither one of these (age and "foundation") should qualify a picl as a higher ranking.It should be based on how big of a step forward the discovery was, no matter what came before it.
I have not complained about any of the rankingsup to now, but Relativity not being in the top tier is wrong.
As I've mentioned before, age has nothing to do with any of the rankings. However, foundation absolutely does and should, moreso in science than most fields. Who gets credit for work is determined by who did it first, and the discovery is judged based on how big of a leap forward it represents. I am by no means trying to diminish the Relativity. However, there was an extensive amount of science performed prior to relativity and many of those earlier findings changed things at least as much as, if not more than, Relativity. We take many of those things for granted because they're well understood and appreciated now. For example:Galileo's discovery of uniform rate overturned 2,000 years of Aristotelian theory and rather completely changed the world. I didn't rank it because it's my own pick, but it's was easily as revolutionary and world changing as Relativity. Universal Gravitation, the Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Electromagnetism....all world changing discoveries.
That said, I'm more than open to discussion. My initial tiering was done roughly with the top 1-2 discoveries in each field being lumped together so as not to bias myself in favor of the things I like the most/understand the best. I was trying to limit my own biases and likely introduced other artifacts in the process. It may very well be that the third or fourth biggest discovery in physics belongs well ahead of the biggest discovery ever in geology. Maybe the top tier should be 1/2 physics. If so, that's where the hard work begins, hence posting the preliminary rankings and seeing what people think of them and encouraging feedback.