I don't think you seem to understand the argument here. Einstein is a prime example of a theorist whose bold theories predicted verifiable results, such as the Einstein Cross. The problem with modern theorists, as the article and the parent comment articulated, is that string theories and whatnot often predict untestable and unverifiable results. This is not an attack on all physics theorists - rather, it's a criticism on the fashionable line of research into string theories and other unverifiable theories.

"Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct". Einstein's theories were ultimately verified, but only long after they were completed. Research into string theory is driven by its theoretical elegance in exactly the same way as Einstein's original SR work.

>> untestable and unverifiable ...

As someone has pointed out above, these theroies are surely "untestable and unverifiable" for now but that doesn't make them unfalsifiable so we must not critisize the theorists just because we cannot test and verify them.

Einstein was special because he never got lost with reality:

"We can invent as many theories we like, and any one of them can be made to fit the facts. But that theory is always preferred which makes the fewest number of assumptions."

And yet, physics ignores his LAST and FINAL conclusion about HIS theory:

"We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

>* There would be no superconductive magnets.

Can you expand upon this? I'm unclear as to which of Einstein's theories you are referencing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_superconductivity

Japan's surrender had absolutely nothing to do with the bomb.

And why does everyone think that without Einstein we would somehow enter a 100 year long dark age?

> "And why does everyone think that without Einstein we would somehow enter a 100 year long dark age?"

He said "without Einstein's theories". Physics would probably have progressed about the same, albeit set back by a bit without the man himself, but all those technologies would still have been dependent on someone doing what Einstein did.

Like Hilbert.