Nikola Tesla is smarter than Steven Hawking
Saying, "Nikola Tesla is smarter than Stephen Hawking" is like saying, "Milkshakes are better than grapefruit." Just because milkshakes and grapefruit are both considered "food" doesn't mean it makes sense to compare them. What does "better" mean? Better how? Milkshakes are "better" in that they have more calcium; grapefruit is "better" because it has more Vitamin C. Milkshakes are sweeter; grapefruit is healthier.
1. Spoke 8 different languages,
2. Tesla invented wireless electricity,
3. Tesla invented the particle beam
4. Tesla invented AC current
5. Tesla invented the magnetic generator,
6. Tesla invented the radio,
7. Tesla invented the technology that allowed us to make the internet,
8. Tesla was a genius physicist that devised theories that are credible and testable.
Steven Hawking's achievements:
1. Speaks one language,
2. Supported the Big Bang theory but when he found out it makes no sense whatsoever he came up with a theory that says that particles came from nowhere and that's how the universe was created.
You "measured it on their achievements"? So you think people who are "smarter" will necessarily achieve more? That's not true. Your argument that Tesla achieved more, therefore Tesla is smarter than Hawking is just plain wrong.
Furthermore, who gets to decide what counts as an "achievement"? You? Stephen Hawking developed a mathematical proof for black holes, proved Einstein's theory of general relativity, and proved that the universe has no boundaries. But apparently none of these deserve a spot on your list of "Steven Hawking's achievements."
About your list of "Steven Hawking's achievements": it proves how ignorant you are. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean you obviously don't know very much about Stephen Hawking, if you think his only achievement (other than "speaking one language") is "supporting" the Big Bang theory and then coming up with "a theory that says that particles came from nowhere and that's how the universe was created."
2). Einsteins relativity was already proven.
3). We already knew the universe has no boundaries.
For argument's sake, let's pretend you're right: Stephen Hawking never made any important contributions to science, and his list of achievements is small and petty compared to Tesla's. Does that prove that Tesla is smarter than Hawking? No, it doesn't. Being smarter does not necessarily mean you achieve more in your life. Some very intelligent people are underachievers. Other people accomplish a great deal, despite not being blessed with exceptional intelligence.
Tesla's achievements are easy for anyone to appreciate. You don't need a sophisticated understanding of science or technology to understand that "Tesla invented the radio." Any layman knows what a radio is, so any layman will be impressed by Tesla's achievement.
In order to properly appreciate Stephen Hawking's achievements, you need to know at least a few things about physics and cosmology. Hawking's achievements must be described using terms like "quantum fluctuations" and "wave functions" and "singularities." Unless you know what these terms mean, you won't be able to appreciate Hawking's contirbutions to science. You won't understand why Hawking is so highly esteemed, and naturally you will be more impressed with Nikola "I Invented the Radio" Tesla.
That's the issue here. You're more impressed with Nikola Tesla because you don't know enough about science to be able to comprehend Stephen Hawking's significance. Stephen Hawking's achievements are unfathomable to you. That's why you think Nikola Tesla is "smarter."
Tesla's theories were all provable. I would bet you don't understand Tesla's contributions, because you neglect to acknowledge that he was also a physicist, who's theories are completely logical, fathomable,rational, and provable.
Now, just because everyone knows what a radio is, does not subtract the brilliance of it, for one, every fool knows what a computer is, does this subtract from Bill Gate's achievements.
Plus, look at the technology of the day, look at what people could fathom, and the knowledge available, this is well beyond anything Hawking ever did.
Sure, you can tell me you know what a singularity is. Of course you can tell me it's unprovable. I could tell you that Nikola Tesla was a fraud who stole all of his ideas from someone else. Just because I tell you something doesn't make it true. Provide some evidence to back up your assertion that Stephen Hawking's work "cannot be regarded as science."
The Copley Medal is awarded for "outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science." Stephen Hawking won the Copley Medal in 2006. The Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize is "to recognize outstanding contributions to physics." Hawking won this prize in 1999. The Albert Einstein Award "was an award in theoretical physics that was established to recognize high achievement in the natural sciences." Who won this prize? Stephen Hawking, in 1978. The Fundamental Physics Prize is "the most lucrative academic prize in the world." Stephen Hawking won this prize (millions of dollars) "for his discovery of Hawking radiation from black holes, and his deep contributions to quantum gravity and quantum aspects of the early universe."
But according to you, Hawking is a pseudoscientist! So, your theory is that Stephen Hawking duped everyone into awarding him all of these prizes for scientific achievement. I guess the people who give out the Fundamental Physics Prize are so incompetent, they don't even know the proper definition of "science." Seriously? It's far more likely that your notions about what "cannot be regarded as science" are erroneous.
Tesla was a great scientist. I never said his inventions were unimpressive. I said that his achievements are easier to appreciate than the "discovery of Hawking radiation from black holes" or "deep contributions to quantum gravity and quantum aspects of the early universe."
2). Not one of Steven Hawking's theories have been proven, he just walked along and said that this is how it is, he never experimented it. His theories are not science, science is when you make observations then you make a conclusion. Steven Hawking just wrote on a chalk board and said "it's proven, I proved it." That's not science.
3). Wining awards doesn't prove anything, Adolf Hitler was on time magazine, what an accomplished individual.
4). How did Steven Hawking discover Hawking radiation from black holes.
5). Science is when you prove something, Nikola Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity, that can be proven , Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity that can be proven, Steven Hawking's theories, they cannot be proven.
6). They are easier to appreciate because they make sense.
Singularity cannot be proven, until you have demonstrated singularity, it has not been proven. Steven Hawking just came along and said "singularity is true," the people say that's proof. How did he prove singularity?
Your grammar here indicates that you don't know what a singularity is. Stephen Hawking would never say "singularity is true" because that would be like saying "unicorn is true," i.e. gramatically incorrect. You don't "prove singularity" just like you don't "prove unicorn."
If you take yourself seriously, why don't you go to the people who awarded Stephen Hawking millions of dollars for his outstanding contributions to science, and inform them that "his theories are not science." Give them your definition of science: "Science is when you prove something." Let them know "singularity is unprovable." If you're correct, they should take away Hawking's multi-million dollar prize. Maybe they'll give it to you.
So far, I have read two of Hawking's books: "A Brief History of Time" and "The Grand Design." These books were written for ordinary people like me. They're very interesting! Read either of these books and you'll get an idea of how brilliant Stephen Hawking really is. He's no pseudoscientist. He earned his reputation as one of the greatest.
I'm sure Nikola Tesla is "smarter" than Stephen Hawking in certain ways, just like Hawking is "smarter" than Tesla in other ways. Both of these men made important contributions to science, in different areas. It is just plain silly to claim that one is "smarter" than the other, overall.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||4|