Does Einstein deserve the title "Man of the Century"? What about other notable people in his century?

Asked by: crithit23
  • He earned it.

    Einstein fully deserves Time's Man of the Century award due to the fact that his Theory of Relativity is very much relevant and valid, the history behind him, and mostly because he had a clean record.
    Seriously, Ghandi was the guy who wanted straight-up pacifism, Clinton was a horndog, and everyone else was very much politically motivated. Einstein did science.

  • I would like to know what other people's opinion is.

    There are other people like Bill Clinton or Mahatma Gandhi that were nominated. What makes Einstein more deserving than the others?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  • No, Tesla was better.

    Einstein's theories are rubbish and Tesla's inventions practically created the modern world. Without Tesla's work in alternating current we wouldn't even be having this discussion over AC powered computers.

    Also, there are plenty of reasons to doubt that Einstein's theories are true.
    Einstein arbitrary dismissed the necessity for an aether. Light was proven to be a wave even before Einstein published his theories and a wave by definition has to travel through a medium. A wave without a medium is an absurdity. And a massless particle ("photon") is also an absurdity. A particle by definition must have mass.

    Einstein's "spacetime" concept is also nonsense. Space by definition cannot have physical properties.

    Einstein's theories also make the assertion that all movement is relative. If an object is said to be moving at speed it can only be moving in relation to another object rather than moving from an absolute frame of reference. This idea is insane on so many levels.

    1)If all motion is relative then how do you explain how a homopolar generator works? If all motion is relative it shouldn't make a difference which side of the generator rotates yet it is only the absolute motion of the disk that matters.

    2)How do you explain length contraction? Let's say you have 2 ships moving close to the speed of light away from an astronaut. So the two ships should be length contracting right? Well, what about the astronaut? Does the astronaut length contract as well since he is technically moving close to the speed of light away from the two ships? What if you add a second astronaut and the 2nd astronaut is moving with the space ships? What happens then?! Do both the astronauts length contract? Do neither of them length contract? Do the ships both length contract and NOT length contract at the same time? This is all nonsense. There is no way to make sense of length contraction without an absolute reference frame such as the aether.

    It gets even wierder on the atomic level. Let's say you induce a current in a wire and let's say you have a stationary observer relative to the wire outside the wire. Electrons move at the speed of light so therefore they engage in length contraction. So far so good, but what happens if we add another observer who is moving at the speed of light relative to the wire. Well, from his perspective it would be the wire that is moving not the electrons. So then it would be only the wire that performs length contraction. Does that make sense? Are we supposed to believe that two opposite things happen to two different observers? What rubbish.

    Einstein rather than adding to our scientific understanding has put us on the wrong path. His illogical bewildering theories cloaked in numerology treated in such high regard by "scientific" "authorities" have probably discouraged millions of youngsters from ever wanting to go into science.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.