Was Einstein as brilliant as they say, or was he a 1 hit wonder?

Answer 1

Though he had multiple "hits" he is know mainly for E=mc2 and his theory of relativity? Though going on those two, his theory of relativity is incorrect because he based it on a static universe that is not expanding. Since the universe is expanding at a rate of
5-10% per 1000000000 years, his entire theory is wrong.
In a sense, he is a one hit wonder, though his ideas indirectly set other advancements in motion.

Answer 2

big E was a champ!
okay, so there was the miracle year that everybody knows about: special relativity, the photoelectric effect, brownian motion... some patent clerk changes the world of physics!
everyone knows about it.

but no one knows what he did afterwards, other than stick out his tongue, ride a bicycle, and write a letter about atom bombs.

the deal is that he spent 10 years writing a theory, more impressive than special relativity by FAR, a theory of gravity and of light and distance and time! it's called general relativity, and, almost a hundred years later, it's still giving the right answer. we build bigger telescopes or more sensitive equipment, and it always gives the right answer. it predicted the expansion of the universe, as well as wacky things like the passage of time slowing down the farther down a gravity well you go. and what's more, he proved it ALL using only the assumption that there was no difference between gravity pulling you down into the floor, and the floor accelerating you upwards... he figured out the math as he went along!

oh boy. Einstein did more than lay one of the corner stones of modern physics, he annexed on a whole new wing, and even furnished it! what a champ.

Answer 3

Einstein was probably more brilliant than "they" say. He laid the foundation (along with some of his peers) for modern physics. He was a marvelous writer, of books as well as letters. He had an amazing ability to communicate complex technical information to those without a background in physics.

Simply, he was an amazing man.

Answer 4

einst....... is no different than you or i, except that he was usually right ,(now im tickled, feels good smiling.)
every1 has the ability to um improv(hot seat, brainstorm), and theorize and spout poetically or some other nonsense. the difference is he was able to use math to more or less back his theories.
but hey we all know about sex, need any math to reinforce your smile?
explore your little outpost, and from experience, keep quiet about it, and history has taught us atleast 1 thing,"the old know it all (not me ahem, wasnt you was it?)didnt know feces and was only halve ryte."
ever wonder if a curveball would curve without outside interference, like the empty of space? would it curve? without a gravity force being excerted from another greater mass? nice but someone already knows. i just ask why, im to stupid to figure it out, although i believe the ball would still curve, doesnt that kinda negate the whole gravity equation or am i just lost as usual? but i do know this environement doesnt exist, but einst. stated that without matter displacing time/space, matter would fail to create gravity or i misheard. he said that if matter didnt create the pocket in time space, that anything in orbit would suddenly shoot in a straight line to infinity.
i may be wrong, i watched something on pbs so hey ill still take that hat.
now if you view gravity and the envelope of the space/time, as the hand of the pitcher(not to mention energy) when the ball leaves his/her hand does it not continue to rotate in the predetermined x,y,z axis? now if you subtract outside interference, wouldnt it continue to corkscrew?
string theory hmm how would the string be flat, wouldnt it be more like a core, with its infinite boundaries always trying to shift? now does vac. tear this energy apart and make it fight being torn apart like jelly running from a butterknive? so if space/time and string were factored with <--infinity---> for points x,y,and z, plus gravity trying to tear apart the core at its smallest level, when compared side by side would the scales be <=> or even close? then if that were true, wouldnt vac be a very strong piece of antimatter? and gravity would be the + and -'s and theyre attraction ,and or repelling natures? so then if you believe in the big bang or creation, then wouldnt they both be remotely possible?so if this is true, then the universe is constantly going through birth and destruction like a kinetic energy model?

Answer 5

It depends on how you look at it. For example, the author of an early 20th-century biography of him claimed to have seen the original Theory of Relativity paper. Apparently, it had his wife's name on it. She was also a brilliant physicist. I have trouble believing he was a genius at physics. He had major issues with math, and physics is to math what the heart is to the body.

Answer 6

He was a multiple hit wonder. General relativity, special relativity and the work in trying to disprove quantum mechanics. A genius.

Answer 7

He was brilliant, until he went through a no entry path of proving quantam mechanics wrong....which he was unable to because of his timely death. Many say the stress and work over proving quantam mechanics lead to his death.

Answer 8

Undead by potential of Hollywood Undead For What it is well worth by potential of Buffalo Springfield Little purple Corvette by potential of Prince Sound of wintry climate by potential of Bush Born interior the u . s . a . by potential of Bruce Springsteen BQ: undesirable to the Bone by potential of Molly Hatchet BQ2: conflict Pigs by potential of Black Sabbath BQ3: photograph by potential of Chris Daughtry and Carlos Santana (before by potential of Def Leppard)

Answer 9

Einstein wasn't so bright... it's I before E and he got it wrong twice in his own name....