(January 4, 1643 – March 31, 1727)

Isaac Newton is the greatest and the most influential scientist this world has ever known. His brilliance ramified all branches of Applied Mathematics. He made groundbreaking advances in Mechanics, Astronomy, Binomials, Calculus, Heat, Acoustics and Optics which revolutionized science like nobody did before or after him. Newton’s works on Mathematical Physics were ingenious, unprecedented and unparalleled. They outstripped his exploits on “Fluxions”; and ensured that his ratings as mathematician remained very high. His intellect complimented his voracious appetite for work. That was why he wrote extensively on Math, Science and Religion. In 1669 (aged 26), he succeeded Isaac Barrow as the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge. Settled in this position, he proceeded to give science the solid foundation it has today. This breath of fresh air has served as template for uncountable technological developments. Prior to Isaac Newton, our world emphasized Natural Philosophy; and after him, we transitioned to Science. Co-inventor of Calculus, his Principia Mathematica is the most prized and the most revered publication in the history of science. His influences and contributions were far-reaching: just as their impacts on the Scientific Revolution were unsurpassed. His Equivalence Principle paved the way for Albert Einstein’s Relativity Theory. But unlike Einstein, (whose incipient and incongruous algebraic approach to Relativity prompted immediate geometric upgrade from Bernhard Riemann’s and Hermann Minkowski’s works), Newton adeptly developed all the math frameworks which anchored his theories and laws. This edge alongside boundless scope consolidated Newton’s superior versatility; and render fatuous, the frequent comparisons with Einstein.


  1. A scientific mind that spearheaded various works is now brought to the fore. Every commendation worth mentioning goes to this brilliant mind.

  2. Gеneralⅼy, I do not learn stuffs like these on bloɡs. But this one compelled me to do so. Your writing style is amazing. Keep it up!

  3. Hi, I’ve been visiting your website a few times and decided to give you some positive feedback because I find it very useful. Well done, I appreciate your work. Thank you.

  4. Hello, I just visited sapaviva.com and thought I would reach out to you.

    I run an animation studio that makes animated explainer videos helping companies to explain what they do, why it matters and how they’re unique in less than 2 minutes.

    I really wanted to make you a super awesome animated video explaining what your company does and the value behind it.

    We have a smooth production process and handle everything needed for a high-quality video that typically takes us 6 weeks to produce from start to finish.

    First, we nail the script, design storyboards you can’t wait to see animated. Voice actors in your native language that capture your brand and animation that screams premium with sound design that brings it all together.

    Our videos are made from scratch and designed to make you stand out and get results. No templates, no cookie cutter animation that tarnishes your brand.

    If you’re interested in learning more, please get in touch.

    I hope to hear back from you.

  5. I love what you guys do. What a clever work and coverage!
    Keep up the awesome work! I’ve incorporated you guys into my blogroll.

  6. Your list is great but where the heck is Charles Darwin or Rosalind Franklin? I think you have more of an obsession towards mathematics and physics than in works in biology. Also some of these are just way out of order. It kindve makes me think it isn’t in any order. That’s how bad some of these are. In some of these rankings its very inconsistent…like are you looking at contributions or overall intelligence? or who you personally think is better? I respect the time and effort, but really what you need to do is make a bigger list say top 150 and slowly eliminate 50 from that list. This is just bad, sorry

    • Hello johnnnny,
      Thanks for your comment and criticism.
      I mentioned that the rankings were based on these four criteria: overall ability, versatility, productivity and developmental influences. Hence, I regret to inform you that both Charles Darwin and Rosalind Franklin failed to make the list.
      …And whatever “obsession” those four ranking criteria have is what this list reflected. It is not my fault that you were unable to comprehend that this work took more than 15 years to complete: because it spanned the 5000 years between 3000 BC and 2000 AD.
      Nearly 3500 notable scientists (from every field) across the whole world (not just Europe) were evaluated and sieved out.
      Your comment obviously showed that you neither read the Introduction nor its accompanying Notes. So, I suggest that you go and read them.
      Thanks again, and have a good day.

  7. Hi, Dr. Valentine Oduenyi: I’m sorry BUT I respectfully do not agree with the numerical ranking(s) of the 100 “Greatest Scientists” enumerated in your Profile Listing on the following bases:

    “The 3 ‘Truth & Facts’ Parameters” of ‘exhaustive estimation/assessment of importance DONE/Contributed by each Scientist in your Listing – hence, in the context of: 1. Achievement Breadth, 2. Performance Depth, and 3. The Achievement Historical Significance IMPACT to human life transcending Religion, Races, Peoples, Nations & Cultures. What? Why? How? When? Which” and WHO? in the perspective of IMPROVING the Life of Humanity in terms of knowledge & understanding of “Laws of Nature”; ways & means of living each life w/ natural absolute values of creation: Truth, Beauty & Goodness: in the context of one’s treatment &/or interaction w/ other fellow human beings on Earth.

    That is, specifically noting further that your ‘Title’: “___ 100 Greatest Scientists…”; yes, “scientists” the main topic of discussion from the point of view of “greatest scientists”. Since, logically & historically, honest evaluation of the term/topic: SCIENCE, strongly & naturally SUGGESTS, that Science can never be assessed w/out the application of ‘mathematics’; and in similar note of technical re-evaluation, that science, or, any sciences for that matter from the point of view of the mechanics of technicality description of the INVOLVED terminology and/or “nomenclature” defining such “science” alone can never be completed as VALID if ‘science’ is treated outside the dimension of “mathematics of natural phenomena”, that is consequently treated in/involved in so-called “Laws of Nature”. Science & Mathematics are intrinsically naturally connected & never are treated as “separate subject”: science can only be studied w/ validity & truthfully genuine, if it is always validated & re-evaluated in the context of laws of natural phenomena involving “mathematics”. Otherwise, such ‘science’ remains “theoretical science” and NOT natural science based on natural phenomena involving: truth, beauty & goodness – deeply inherent in the non-arguable “law of natural operating phenomena” that defines, maintains, sustains, & protects “human life” on Earth.

    THEREFORE: that is – we MUST treat “science” as ‘natural science/s”; or, simply put it in the 21st Century Nomenclature Level of Definition Advancement Terminology – Today; yes, TODAY: it is always understood that “science is …” in the context of “natural science” and/or, “mathematical science”. We can never separate life from energy; nor, force from energy; nor Mathematics from Science. Otherwise, it become illogical, senseless, insensitively incompatible with the Nature’s Laws because it violates Truth, Beauty & Goodness of the 5 Laws of Thermodynamics of Human Life inside the Mother’s Womb: the Mathematically Expanding UNIVERSE whose Energy & Force has “Life-ORIGIN”. That is to say, in similar context that it goes to agree with and state: [which is NOT, NEVER it is & NEVER will be…] that ” I was brought out into this world w/OUT parents (father & mother) simply because I was evolved into this Earth from nothing … w/OUT any value at all … w/OUT Truth, Beauty & Goodness of Life”]. This I do NOT agree with respectfully.

    Therefore: all your Listed “100 Greatest Scientists” must be understood as 100 Greatest [Mathematical] Scientists; or, 100 Greatest Natural Scientists. BUT then, this is NOT the truth-fact-content of your said Listed “100 Greatest Scientists..” This I NEVER agree with. Specifically, your 1st 20 of the listed “100 Greatest Scientists” sadly FAIL in A. Numerical Standing & Listing of Names – accordingly in meeting the ‘technical dimensions & scientific standards of ‘life-importance’ parameters of evaluation in the context of Truth, Beauty & Goodness universality of impact to humanity from the perspective of 2nd Par. of My Reply/Comment above.

    — Gpw Bernard Bautista Rementilla-26

    • Hello Gpw Bernard Bautista Rementilla-26, your disagreement is welcomed.
      However, you seemed so lost in your own comment that it became incoherent. Also, your failure to read the website’s introductory note meant that you remained ignorant of my ranking criteria. Hence, I recommend that you go and educate yourself: by reading the Introduction (alongside its accompanying Notes). Thank you.

  8. You made some nice points there. I did a search on the subject matter and found that most people will agree with your blog.

  9. Can you provide all parameter points( overall ability, versatility, productivity and developmental influences.) you used in ranking for each individuals.

  10. The working based on extensive research is commendable and in fact every assessment is very much neutral. However there might be some links missing and the foremost name which comes to my mind is Charles Darwin whose name without prejudice deserve place in the list.

  11. Wihtout any doubt the just and imprtial assessment of the world genious minds and bringing their marvellous achievement to a single page is commendable. But i will add that Charles darwin deserves a prominent place in the list which is missing.

    • Dear Muhammad Irfan
      The rankings on this website are based solely on merit. …All hypes were ignored, and everything depended on these four criteria: overall ability, versatility, productivity and developmental influences. …Despite my respect and appreciation for Charles Darwin, it is a pity that he failed to make the list.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment