Oh come on! @Qmechanic please open up this question. It's interesting and will help kids like me in the future. Ok what edits should I make for you to open this question?

Well, Ron... what's your physics question, anyway?

@FlatterMann I'm not Ron! I'm just a fanboy. Please help me complete this list! It's important in my opinion.

The most important physicist of all times was Galileo. He discovered the theory of everything in 1630. Everybody who followed after him is just fleshing it out for him.

@FlatterMann I'm talking about 20th century Theoretical Physics, everything before that is basically absorbed by society so there's no point in reading that.

Well, you clearly didn't know that Galileo is the only truly important physicist, so that phrase about "having it absorbed" rings kind of hollow.

@FlatterMann so just reading Galileo is enough to be a world-class physicist? You are insane! 6 year olds know Galileo's stuff probably nowadays.

If you have read Galileo and you are a truly world class physicist, then you know that you have been outclassed by a Dude in the 17th century. The man had it all figured out, already. He also built a telescope (have you?) and he discovered Jupiter's moons. That's a very hard act to follow.

@FlatterMann dude do you want to help me with this list or not? Anyway everybody knows Archimedes>Galileo

He also took on the Catholic Church, lived to tell the tale and he got them to admit that they were wrong... Che Galileo was a real revolutionary! I have a t-shirt with his likeness that I keep wearing in public to show off just how progressive I am!

@FlatterMann Archimedes is clear

The 20th century revolutionary Che Guevara also copied Galileo's headgear. The man was also a true fashion icon and centuries ahead of his time as far as head warmers are concerned. And let's be honest... just how efficient can a theorist with a cold head be?

@FlatterMann blud what are you waffling about?

@SridattVerenkar, physics is not like philosophy, for many reasons, but mostly due to the fact that the validity of a theory is based on its success to predict and describe reality, and this in a quantitative fashion. Therefore, when it comes to well established theories, reading first sources is virtually never more beneficial than reading a more pedagogical introduction to the subject. Finally, physics is like math, music and sports in a sense: you learn by doing, not by watching. Reading is never enough, you need to practice through exercises.

@Albert I explicitly state in my question that I learn second hand first through standard textbooks, but I don't want to stop there! I want to go back to the source papers and work through them. As for the "reading" I guess that was a mistake on my part, I don't just read! I solve problems all the time! I'm currently working through K&K's Mechanics and after that I intend on reading EVERY book on Classical Mechanics so I don't leave out anything. Then I'll probably read Galileo, Descartes, Huygens, Newton, Lagrange, Hamilton, Noether, Kolmogorov, Arnold and Moser to complete my CM education.

@SridattVerenkar, if you want to read first souces for the sake of reading first sources, go ahead and enjoy it, but be aware of the fact that, if your goal is to learn physics, then that method is probably nothing short of absurd. Oh, and if you did things "the usual way", using standard literature, you wouldn't be asking this question because you would have a clear idea of who produced the most important ideas you studied.

@Albert I'm a Newbie! I'm just getting started with Classical Mechanics right now. How am I supposed to know who produced the most important ideas? I just used the Nobel Prize as a proxy for this. And I strongly disagree with you on your opinion about reading the first sources. You only really understand stuff when you master the source material! I know most people don't do this but unlike them I want to be an ACTUAL COMPETENT Physicist! How can you call yourself a Physicist if you haven't read the masters? I know this as a Newbie!

I am simply pointing out the the best theoreticians have either big hair or large hats: Newton, Einstein, Michio Kaku. There is some serious thermodynamics going on there.

@FlatterMann lmao

@SridattVerenkar, respectfully, for starters, as a newbie, I do not think you can be so bold as to outright claim to "know how to be an actual competent physicist."

@SridattVerenkar furthermore, I am a big supporter of the whole "going to the source" ideal myself but this is not always practical. One BIG reason is that many of these sources are originally in DIFFERENT LANGUGES. So, in your world-view, you would have to master French, German, Italian, Latin and some Japanese to read a lot of this stuff.

@SridattVerenkar and if I may be so forward, true competency in physics or any of the sciences lies in one's scientific temperament, which includes, but is not limited to asking the right questions and figuring out ways to solve them, either on a lab, or a paper/computer. Original sources often offer insight that can help, but obsessing over them for their niceties is more of a philosopher's or an educator's job, not a scientist's.

@SongofPhysics I just know that my hunch is right even as a newbie. I know it in my soul. I'm going to leave my peers in the dust with this technique I'm 100% sure.

@SridattVerenkar yes because they'd have accomplished everything in their life by the time you finish your mastery and probably pass away into dust :)