Instead of consider Einstein as a scientific, we should consider it as philosopher of relativism. This only could fit to understand all the paradoxes Einstein wrote in his life.

The way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me; and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you" [Theaetetus 152a]
— Protagoras of Abdera.

S/G Relativity =|= "relativism".

What's odd is, people, including scientists treat Einstein's theory of relativity as the most astounding work of math and physics since Newton 3 centuries ago. Contrast that to what the Nobel Committee believed Einstein should be rewarded with the greatest honor a scientist can hope to receive, the so-called photoelectric effect.

One of two things is possible: either most people, scientists included, are fools or the Nobel Committee back then (1921) were complete morons.

I'm worried, if I'm even capable of such feelings, that one of the two parties vide supra are committing the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi (missing the point)! One party, don't know which, is barking up the wrong tree! I don't think we should be doing that. Do you?

Other possibilities exist of course but I'm not aware of any as of the moment!

Oh my fault! Thank you for explaining me both concepts are different :up:

either most people, scientists included, are fools or the Nobel Committee back then (1921) were complete morons. — TheMadFool

To be honest, I think they still be morons :lol: sometimes I don’t even understand some Nobel laureates (at least in literature). There are a lot of good writers who died without winning it like Baroja or Cheever.

To be honest, I think they still be morons :lol: sometimes I don’t even understand some Nobel laureates (at least in literature). There are a lot of good writers who died without winning it like Baroja or Cheever. — javi2541997

Crème de la crème problem: Best is not enough. Best of the best, you have a chance of...not winning the Nobel Prize but only getting shortlisted. Those who actually win are, for all practical intents & purposes, gods!

Excuse the digression.

Back to the main page now. I'm approaching the Einstein paradox from a theistic angle (sorry @180 Proof but do play along). So, God reveals 2 scientific truths to us viz. the theory of relativity and the photoelectric effect. If you ask the general populace and the scientific community, Einstein should've got the Nobel for relativity. Yet, the world's best minds (?) - the Nobel Committee (1921) - disagreed and were unanimous (?) in their decision to award Einstein the Nobel for the photoelecric effect.

I'm very vague on the timeline of these discoveries - perhaps the world hadn't yet (1920's) got wind of how powerful the theory of relativity was/is relative to the photoelectric effect.

Anyhow, God wanted us to find out something. Between the two discoveries Einstein made, I'm at a loss which one is the clue and which one is the false lead. Perhaps both are clues, possibly both are dead ends? :chin:

Historical aside (elaborating on the OP):

Albert Einstein earned his Nobel Prize in 1921 for discovering "the law of the photoelectric effect" (citation by Nobel committee) which he had conjectured in his 1905 paper "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", and which had significantly contributed to the development of quantum theory. Of course, it was Special Relativity 1905 and General Relativity 1915 which have transformed classical physics so profoundly, and I've never understood why Einstein wasn't awarded a second or third Nobel Prize for them, respectively, in subsequent years.