Newton vs Einstein

-_-This debate was supposed to be much more than the narrow-minded perspective my adversary has taken to view it. But nevertheless I'll clear up any misconceptions and set things straight. RELEVANCE TO THE FRAMEWORK Primarily, the resolution for this debate says 'Newton vs Einstein' which translates to Newton AGAINST Einstein and nothing more. There is not really anything vague about the resolution. For a contender who choses a scientist, he/she has to simply prove that their scientist is BETTER in ways they seem fit, that is quite all. If CON found this vague he could have either a) Not chosen to accept this debate. b) Could have asked and clarified about it in a PM or in the comments section. He did neither. So his ranting in round 2 is quite unjustified. Secondly, he claims I did not refute what he has said in round 1. But all he has said is 'since the topic does not specify science (let alone physics), we will extend our arguments to which man had a bigger influence ALTOGETHER. ' Yes CON is right about one thing here the topic DOES NOT specify science alone and that exactly was the intention. Next he wants to extend arguments to who had a bigger influence. But never said that the debate should ONLY be about that. There was no constraints imposed here and thus, there was no need for me to refute what CON said because simply because 'influence' too was a small subset of the whole debate. My adversary wants the debate title to be changed to 'Resolved: Albert Einstein had a larger impact on society than did Isaac Newton' I encourage him to instigate a debate of his own if he wants to debate the topics he desires but this debate is remaining the way it is meant to be. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With that cleared up I will now justify my contentions on why it makes Einstein BETTER than Newton. Definition better: more desirable, superior, or higher in quality. C1) Audacity The confidence in one's own discoveries is without argument something essential and desirable for a scientist. C2) Possesion of other talents Both Albert Einstein and Newton were talented in their own field. They both had the necessary curiosity to become great scientists and contribute a lot to the world. But apart from their ability to find answers to the mysteries of the universe what other abilities do they have? Einstein's talent in music takes him one step furthur than Newton because he clearly has something MORE than what they both had in common and thus that makes him better. C3) Philathropy This is self explanatory. Going out of one's selfish interests to help another human being is definitely a desirable quality that makes a person better than his counterparts. C4) Humbleness Humblesness is a virtue. Being humble after having had the success Einstein did is no ordinary feat. Thus it's a desirable quality in an individual as well and Einstein is more humble than Newton. Now since my adversary insists on comparing influences I'll concur with him and show that Einstein too had equal if not more influence on the society. I do this simply because it's a part of the debate as well. [1,2] i) Global Positioning System and Navigation In order for your car's GPS navigation to function as accurately as it does, satellites have to take relativistic effects into account. This is because even though satellites aren't moving at anything close to the speed of light, they are still going pretty fast. The satellites are also sending signals to ground stations on Earth. These stations (and the GPS unit in your car) are all experiencing higher accelerations due to gravity than the satellites in orbit. If no relativistic effects were accounted for, a GPS unit that tells you it's a half mile (0.8 km) to the next gas station would be 5 miles (8 km) off after only one day. ii) Light If Isaac Newton had been right in assuming that there is an absolute rest frame, we would have to come up with a different explanation for light, because it wouldn't HAPPEN AT ALL. "Not only would magnetism not exist but light would also not exist, because relativity requires that changes in an electromagnetic field move at a finite speed instead of instantaneously," Moore, of Pomona College, said. "If relativity did not enforce this requirement … changes in electric fields would be communicated instantaneously … instead of through electromagnetic waves, and both magnetism and light would be unnecessary. " iii) Nuclear Plants Relativity is one reason that mass and energy can be converted into each other, which is how nuclear power plants work, and why the sun shines. Another important effect is in supernova explosions, which signal the death of massive stars. iv) Television It is thanks to his Special Theory of Relativity that we are able to receive such sharp images today. Electrons are accelerated in a television and, according to the Theory of Relativity, the mass of electrons thereby increases measurably. If one did not take this increase in mass into account, the electrons on the screen would show divergences in the millimetre range. All the images would be blurred. v) Digital Cameras Digital cameras can only take pictures because they contain a small sensor which converts light into electricity. The principle can be traced directly back to Einstein, who explained the Photoelectric Effect in 1905. Not only does this work form the basis for the development of all equipment which converts light into electricity – from digital cameras to solar cells – it also earned him the Nobel Prize in November 1921 (awarded 1922). vi) Laser All technologies which involve the use of laser beams are based on Einsteins theories. In 1924, Einstein was the first person to recognise the principles of monochrome, bundled laser light. So you see Einstein's theories are all around us in the form of practical applications. Now I'll move on to examine my opponent's case. He claims, It is a stretch to grant photoelectric effect to Einstein. To this I have only one thing to say, 'If we were to accept Einstein never created the theory of Photoelectric effect then Newton never created calculus as well'. I mean Einstein was given the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect! Heinrich Hertz merely observed it happening and never gave a cogent explanation for it. If we were to follow my adversary's logic then Newton shouldn't be credited with calculus either because there is undeniable proof that it was created 250 years ago in India before Newton. Furthermore, Leibniz too had independently contributed a lot to the fundamentals of calculus so in effect my opponents arguments should fail as well. [4] Einstein’s Contribution to Mathematics My adversary makes it look like Einstein had nothing to do with mathematics but the truth is even though Einstein was remembered for his contributions to physics, he also made contributions in mathematics. He contributed several equations to calculus and geometry, ten of which are called the Einstein Field Equations. He first published these equations in 1915. [5] I have made a cogent case and have firmly established that Einstein is much better than Newton. Five of my contentions are still unrefuted and I’ve provided enough evidence that upholds my stance in this debate. I request voters to not get distracted by CON’s derailment of this debate and vote according to who has done a better job at making a convincing case in accordance with the resolution of this debate. Thank You! Source: 1: . http://www.livescience.com... 2: . http://www.einsteinjahr.de... 3: . http://www.cbc.ca... 4: . https://www.researchgate.net... 5: . http://famous-mathematicians.org...