The Biggest Mistake Ever Made!

I actually posted two questions and one statement that I would like an answer to.
As would I.

This was posted in the Alt Theories forum, yet I do not see any alt theory. What I see are complaints about an existing theory.
So, my question is: what is this alternative theory?
 
As would I.

This was posted in the Alt Theories forum, yet I do not see any alt theory. What I see are complaints about an existing theory.
So, my question is: what is this alternative theory?
Complaints about the naming of an existing Theory, which is probably the least interesting and important thing about it.

Perhaps we should start a thread on the the naming of "Big Bang Theory?" A joke don't you know?
Hubble tension, Dark Energy, early Galaxies, lambda CDM?
Forget that silly science stuff, Cosmology biggest mistake was letting that chap Hoyle make fun of everyone in 1949.
 
"The biggest mistake ever made is in NOT realizing that time is relative, thus finite, thus infinitely many times, countless times, times (invariably plural) paralleling vertically and horizontally, never one time in any case.... Not even the observable universe is singular regarding time but is observably many times . . . and none of those eternally many times (many histories), those eternally many worlds, will ever disappear from a locality of relativity of 'observable universe'...."
 
"The biggest mistake ever made is in NOT realizing that time is relative, thus finite, thus infinitely many times, countless times, times (invariably plural) paralleling vertically and horizontally, never one time in any case.... Not even the observable universe is singular regarding time but is observably many times . . . and none of those eternally many times (many histories), those eternally many worlds, will ever disappear from a locality of relativity of 'observable universe'...."
Right.

I asked you a question post #3 - Do we get an answer?
 
My take on this thread. What is the question? It sounds like the "alternative theory" is that Einstein didn't make a mistake regarding time being relative.

That's not an alternative theory. Later you imply that means time is finite? That doesn't follow. The two concepts are distinct. It can be relative and either finite or infinite.

Regarding admonishments that this is a discussion forum and posting blogs isn't allowed...how do we explain Tiassa?
Regarding the comment that Einstein didn't have invariant in the title of his paper, what does that have to do with the comment that Einstein wanted to use that term but didn't?

Yes, calling members names isn't going to get your far. As Parmalee (when he gets back).
 
My take on this thread. What is the question? It sounds like the "alternative theory" is that Einstein didn't make a mistake regarding time being relative.

That's not an alternative theory. Later you imply that means time is finite? That doesn't follow. The two concepts are distinct. It can be relative and either finite or infinite.

Regarding admonishments that this is a discussion forum and posting blogs isn't allowed...how do we explain Tiassa?
Regarding the comment that Einstein didn't have invariant in the title of his paper, what does that have to do with the comment that Einstein wanted to use that term but didn't?

Yes, calling members names isn't going to get your far. As Parmalee (when he gets back).
Agree on all points, I tried to formulate some questions from his post as did DaveC426913.

We are waiting for his responses.
 
Regarding admonishments that this is a discussion forum and posting blogs isn't allowed...how do we explain Tiassa?
I asked this myself.
1. Though he blogs, his content is generally at least cogent, even if problematic for other reasons.
2. His long time contributions to the site as moderator give him a pass.
 
The biggest mistake ever made is in NOT realizing that time is relative...
Einstein realised that more than 100 years ago. Who do you think doesn't realise this, in the modern era?
..., thus finite, thus infinitely many times, countless times, times (invariably plural) paralleling vertically and horizontally, never one time in any case!
This is a non sequitur.
The big mistake made by cosmological physicists is in wrongly attempting to reduce time to a naked singularity, a single arrow of time.
You are factually mistaken. Cosmological physicists don't do that.
Not even the observable universe is singular regarding time but is observably many times . . .
Everybody is in agreement about that. Good.
.... and none of those eternally many times (many histories), those eternally many worlds, will ever disappear from a locality of relativity of "observable universe."
You've drifted into writing incomprehensible nonsense again. Try to formulate your ideas in English that makes sense.
Trying to find a minimal, or maximal, singular unit of time, one time overall soft and stretchable as dough (so to speak), one universe of time, will always be an exercise in futility.
Er... okay.

Is anybody trying to do that?
Times (an infinite plurality only!) aren't soft, they are hard as diamond, so to speaking, always breaking in and out to countless many points and/or frames of times.
This doesn't make any sense, either.
The mistake is in NOT REALLY understanding the meaning of relativity or why Albert Einstein wanted it called the "Theory of Invariance" (or "Invariability") rather than the "Theory of Relativity."
This claim about Einstein is interesting. Can you please point me to a reference where Einstein said he wanted his theory to be called the "Theory of Invariance"?

Who are you claiming doesn't really understand the "meaning of relativity"?

What's your understanding of relativity like? Have you studied it?
"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other...." -- 'Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet', by Arthur Canon Doyle.

(From a dollop of light, a logician could infer the possibility of an observable universe or a flowing stream of light without having seen or heard of one or the other.)
Non sequitur.
 
Back
Top