Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I actually posted two questions and one statement that I would like an answer to.
The Biggest Mistake Ever Made!
- Thread starter Atlan0001
- Start date
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I asked my first question in post #3 btw. This is now post #22
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
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?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
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'...."
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
My question was in post 9
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
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).
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).
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Agree on all points, I tried to formulate some questions from his post as did DaveC426913.
We are waiting for his responses.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
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.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Meanwhile we wait for the answers to our questions.....
Einstein realised that more than 100 years ago. Who do you think doesn't realise this, in the modern era?
This is a non sequitur.
You are factually mistaken. Cosmological physicists don't do that.
Everybody is in agreement about that. Good.
You've drifted into writing incomprehensible nonsense again. Try to formulate your ideas in English that makes sense.
Er... okay.
Is anybody trying to do that?
This doesn't make any sense, either.
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?
Non sequitur.