Thread: Critique of the Et al Theory

1. See attached

2. Et Al Theory

THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE UNIVERSE

About 14 billion years ago as we have extrapolated, an event occurred that we term “The Big Bang”. People that believe in relativity believe that it was the beginning of the universe. The Et Al Theory simply concludes that it was and is also the end point of the universe.
Et Al Theorem

Matter and Energy are different perspectives of the same phenomena

1.) Matter is temporal and relative
2.) Energy is timeless and absolute.
3.) The temporal perspective only can perceive matter.
4.) Energy defies perception and cannot be observed in the temporal plane.
5.) Einstein’s formula E=MC2 simply describes the relationship
Reflections on the physical universe using the Universal Paradigm

Et Al Theory
1.) Ø =¥. ZERO = INFINITY.
2.) Because time is relative, on a absolute scale, time has no reality.
3.) Gravity exists within the universe not outside it.
4.) There are only three definable elements in the universe: matter, energy, and cognizance.
5.) Every point in the universe is its own center point.
6.) Light is timeless and has no speed; it traverses the universe instantly.
7.) Light can only be generated by consuming matter as E=MC2
8.) All states of the universe from singularity to total expanded state exist simultaneously.

The et al concept refutes one mathematical concept that infinity is the largest possible value.
The concept reduces Einstein’s formula from E=M C2 to E= M
Whereas C = the speed of light represents a time constant in the relative perspective, in the absolute perspective, time does not exist. Reality is such that perspective also does not exist. The simple conclusion is that matter and energy are different perspectives of the same phenomena

An explanation of the "Big Bang"

If there is but one unit of matter, i.e., gravity which involves a force of attraction of matter to matter but not matter to itself, results in what we see in our observation of the universe. In such a case gravity does not affect the singularity that results in the initial state extrapolated through scientific observation. Since gravity cannot operate beyond the periphery of matter the expansion proceeds toward infinity, which are simultaneously the beginning and the end.
et al July 8, 1996
Recent findings that the universe is accelerating support the idea that matter in the universe will reach the speed of light, disappear as matter, and reach the relative time point of the big bang instant when in absolute terms all matter turned into total energy.

Et Al Theory

(Revised to include the uncertainty principle June 9, 2001)
CONDITION OF THE UNIVERSE RELATIVE TO Ø= ¥, ZERO=INFINITY
& THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE
According to Einstein
t=t1 divided by the square root of 1-(v squared/c squared)

This means that light is timeless because when v = speed of light or c then

t=t1 divided by the square root of 1-(c squared/c squared) or infinity

One can perceive the singularity, and realize that distance equals the difference between points a and b. Light traverses the universe instantly relative to itself because point b is non-existent. It is known that the center of the universe is always at the point of the observer. Since every point in the universe is its own center, when light is propagated, i.e. when we light a match, the propagation point is indeed the center of the universe and the light propagated relative to itself instantaneously reaches the end of the universe, which is also the beginning. In reality, it simply harmonizes with the original singularity conversion to total energy.
The universe can be perceived to exist in two states simultaneously with the absence of time and the absence of relatively. The one is the singularity where matter exists in the absence of energy or light or waves, as we know them, and the other is wave energy in the absence of matter. The present or "now" is a point somewhere between those two states: ø= ¥. The "Big Bang" or start of the universe happened the instant the singularity formed. At that instant, the matter converted into complete wave energy. For that instant -- relative to itself -- and for infinity, the universe ended. Because (relative to itself) light is timeless, the end will happen forever. Every instant that ever was or will be exists simultaneously in the universe. Hence, everything that will happen in the universe has already happened; we have yet to experience it.
There are two different points of reference in which physical phenomena can be expressed -that is- absolute and relative. Therefore, when we analyze the state of matter more closely we begin to view it in absolute terms and find that position is tenuous. On an absolute scale, matter only exists as energy. On a relative scale, matter can be perceived but only in the presence of phenomena, we call time. That gives us the ability to perceive the two as separate entities. * Recent findings that the universe is accelerating support the idea that matter in the universe will reach the speed of light, disappear as matter, and reach the relative time point of the big bang instant when in absolute terms all matter turned into total energy. *December 2, 2002
Einstein's flaws
Einstein assumed that all must agree on the speed of light. This agreement assumes that light travels at 186,000 miles per second. This is simply a relative truth.
Einstein's postulation that there are no instantaneous interactions in nature is only relatively, but not absolutely, true. His own formula states that
t=t1 divided by the square root of 1-(c squared/c squared) or infinity

This refutes his position as demonstrated above. If one is traveling at the speed of light time stands still and, therefore, does not exist.

file etal2b

3. Originally Posted by EtalU
Et Al Theory

THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE UNIVERSE

About 14 billion years ago as we have extrapolated, an event occurred that we term “The Big Bang”. People that believe in relativity believe that it was the beginning of the universe. The Et Al Theory simply concludes that it was and is also the end point of the universe.
Et Al Theorem...
My main critique is that your theorem is soundly contradicted by the La Te (also spelled Latte in some texts) theorem, which builds on the works of Emmy Noether, Willem De Sitter, and the redoubtable Tarquin Fintim. Aside from being a delicious beverage, Latte enjoys approximately 13 times the number of citations as Et Al in referred journals (one does not count instances of "et al." in author lists).

4. Originally Posted by EtalU
About 14 billion years ago as we have extrapolated, an event occurred that we term “The Big Bang”.
There is no evidence for any such event.

People that believe in relativity believe that it was the beginning of the universe.
Some people may believe that but there is no evidence for it.

1.) Matter is temporal and relative
2.) Energy is timeless and absolute.
Energy is not absolute. It is relative. For example, if I see a car moving past me then I know it has significant kinetic energy. But if I am moving with the car, then it has zero kinetic energy.

4.) Energy defies perception and cannot be observed in the temporal plane.
Then how does all of physics work?

5.) Einstein’s formula E=MC2 simply describes the relationship
That equation is incomplete, by the way.

1.) Ø =¥. ZERO = INFINITY.
Very obviously nonsense. Infinity is larger than any number. While zero is not.

3.) Gravity exists within the universe not outside it.
As there is no "outside the universe" this statement is trivially true but at the same time meaningless.

4.) There are only three definable elements in the universe: matter, energy, and cognizance.
Please define each of these then.

6.) Light is timeless and has no speed; it traverses the universe instantly.
Nonsense. Light travels at a finite speed.

The et al concept refutes one mathematical concept that infinity is the largest possible value.
Infinity is NOT the largest possible value. But if you are going to redefine infinity, than I guess anything is possible. Like proving 1 = 2.

I'm afraid the rest of your post becomes increasingly incoherent and I gave up trying to identify the many errors in it. I think you should learn a little basic physics before making up stuff like this.

5. The Et Al Theory suggests that this universe is both static and dynamic. It has not only started at the big bang, but also ended at the same time. A hard "pill" to swallow for a species like ours smitten with such egos as ours. Could it be? That every decision that we have made in our lifetime has already happened? Our lifetime has already ended along with the instantaneous demise of our universe? Awesome!

Et Al Theory

THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE UNIVERSE

About 14 billion years ago as we have extrapolated, an event occurred that we term “The Big Bang”. People that believe in relativity believe that it was the beginning of the universe. The Et Al Theory simply concludes that it was and is also the end point of the universe.
Et Al Theorem

Matter and Energy are different perspectives of the same phenomena

1.) Matter is temporal and relative
2.) Energy is timeless and absolute.
3.) The temporal perspective only can perceive matter.
4.) Energy defies perception and cannot be observed in the temporal plane.
5.) Einstein’s formula E=MC2 simply describes the relationship
Reflections on the physical universe using the Universal Paradigm

Et Al Theory
1.) Ø =¥. ZERO = INFINITY.
2.) Because time is relative, on a absolute scale, time has no reality.
3.) Gravity exists within the universe not outside it.
4.) There are only three definable elements in the universe: matter, energy, and cognizance.
5.) Every point in the universe is its own center point.
6.) Light is timeless and has no speed; it traverses the universe instantly.
7.) Light can only be generated by consuming matter as E=MC2
8.) All states of the universe from singularity to total expanded state exist simultaneously.

The et al concept refutes one mathematical concept that infinity is the largest possible value.
The concept reduces Einstein’s formula from E=M C2 to E= M
Whereas C = the speed of light represents a time constant in the relative perspective, in the absolute perspective, time does not exist. Reality is such that perspective also does not exist. The simple conclusion is that matter and energy are different perspectives of the same phenomena

An explanation of the "Big Bang"

If there is but one unit of matter, i.e., gravity which involves a force of attraction of matter to matter but not matter to itself, results in what we see in our observation of the universe. In such a case gravity does not affect the singularity that results in the initial state extrapolated through scientific observation. Since gravity cannot operate beyond the periphery of matter the expansion proceeds toward infinity, which are simultaneously the beginning and the end.
et al July 8, 1996
Recent findings that the universe is accelerating support the idea that matter in the universe will reach the speed of light, disappear as matter, and reach the relative time point of the big bang instant when in absolute terms all matter turned into total energy.

Et Al Theory

(Revised to include the uncertainty principle June 9, 2001)
CONDITION OF THE UNIVERSE RELATIVE TO Ø= ¥, ZERO=INFINITY
& THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE
According to Einstein
t=t1 divided by the square root of 1-(v squared/c squared)

This means that light is timeless because when v = speed of light or c then

t=t1 divided by the square root of 1-(c squared/c squared) or infinity

One can perceive the singularity, and realize that distance equals the difference between points a and b. Light traverses the universe instantly relative to itself because point b is non-existent. It is known that the center of the universe is always at the point of the observer. Since every point in the universe is its own center, when light is propagated, i.e. when we light a match, the propagation point is indeed the center of the universe and the light propagated relative to itself instantaneously reaches the end of the universe, which is also the beginning. In reality, it simply harmonizes with the original singularity conversion to total energy.
The universe can be perceived to exist in two states simultaneously with the absence of time and the absence of relatively. The one is the singularity where matter exists in the absence of energy or light or waves, as we know them, and the other is wave energy in the absence of matter. The present or "now" is a point somewhere between those two states: ø= ¥. The "Big Bang" or start of the universe happened the instant the singularity formed. At that instant, the matter converted into complete wave energy. For that instant -- relative to itself -- and for infinity, the universe ended. Because (relative to itself) light is timeless, the end will happen forever. Every instant that ever was or will be exists simultaneously in the universe. Hence, everything that will happen in the universe has already happened; we have yet to experience it.
There are two different points of reference in which physical phenomena can be expressed -that is- absolute and relative. Therefore, when we analyze the state of matter more closely we begin to view it in absolute terms and find that position is tenuous. On an absolute scale, matter only exists as energy. On a relative scale, matter can be perceived but only in the presence of phenomena, we call time. That gives us the ability to perceive the two as separate entities. * Recent findings that the universe is accelerating support the idea that matter in the universe will reach the speed of light, disappear as matter, and reach the relative time point of the big bang instant when in absolute terms all matter turned into total energy. *December 2, 2002
Einstein's flaws
Einstein assumed that all must agree on the speed of light. This agreement assumes that light travels at 186,000 miles per second. This is simply a relative truth.
Einstein's postulation that there are no instantaneous interactions in nature is only relatively, but not absolutely, true. His own formula states that
t=t1 divided by the square root of 1-(c squared/c squared) or infinity

This refutes his position as demonstrated above. If one is traveling at the speed of light time stands still and, therefore, does not exist.

file etal2b

6. Originally Posted by EtalU
The Et Al Theory ...

7. Originally Posted by EtalU
This refutes his position as demonstrated above. If one is traveling at the speed of light time stands still and, therefore, does not exist.
One cannot travel at the speed of light and therefore this objection is irrelevant (and wrong).

8. Originally Posted by tk421
My main critique is that your theorem is soundly contradicted by the La Te (also spelled Latte in some texts) theorem, which builds on the works of Emmy Noether, Willem De Sitter, and the redoubtable Tarquin Fintim. Aside from being a delicious beverage, Latte enjoys approximately 13 times the number of citations as Et Al in referred journals (one does not count instances of "et al." in author lists).
Thank you for your several replies! I apologize for errors in etiquette. Et al means and others and is the basis of a belief that "intellect is additive" that is the basis of a personal concept called the Universal Paradigm that subscribes to the notion that the two of us is wiser than either one of us. Respectfully, with your permission I'd like to discuss all of your several critiques to the et al (and others) theory to see if we can have an increased resolution of our differing perspectives. I've found that this makes for better science. I will look up the La Te theorem and submit the Universal Paradigm that is the essence of my process of inquiry.

1.) We come to the master for resolution
2.) Resolution redefines the master

As I resolve to others, it results in increased self-mastry

9. Originally Posted by EtalU
1.) We come to the master for resolution
2.) Resolution redefines the master
1. What on Earth does that mean?
2. Who is "the master"?
3. Resolution of what?
4. What does this have to do with your confused and limited knowledge of cosmology?

10. Sorry for the philosophical discussion. I had hope not to debate. My methods of inquiry are somewhat different from yours. (one might define it as Socratic in nature). This is why I use the paradigm as a guide.
Since I don't believe in debate, I've developed a non-adversarial process to learn from you rather than coerce you into seeing things my way

The Universal Paradigm (As stated earlier)

1) WE COME TO THE MASTER FOR RESOLUTION
2) RESOLUTION REDEFINES THE MASTER

The universal paradigm is a very simple system. It recognizes the universe in its true simplicity – that is – all parts of the universe are related to the whole in truth. Thus comprehension of the whole can be made with the understanding that of this supreme truth. All truth is related. In order to comprehend this concept, we must have a repository of consistent facts.

Unfortunately our present repository of facts is untenable because of so many differing beliefs

In order to use the paradigm, it is necessary to create a repository of truths. Why a repository? An important reason for this is that simple truths are often clouded by delusive postulates. We can take our lesson from the way geometry theorems are explored. We can also take lessons from the society at large that accepts false notions as truths only to be deceived. In geometry, we proceed axiom by axiom to achieve our understanding. The repository is essential at first because of outside contamination. For most of us, our reality consists of accepted facts and notions. We accept some facts as true even though some of these truths conflict with each other. When using the paradigm we must be very mindful of these discrepancies. Because the universe is consistent, truths cannot be contradictory. Thus our repository must be consistent with the universe. We can however accept uncertainty of our understanding of a truth. Finally, we must realize that as our repository increases in scope, that any time there is conflicting information it resolved in a fashion that doesn’t cause us to believe in contradictory information.

Examples:

In order to explore the paradigm, we’ve recast some perplexing questions in the framework of the paradigm. First let’s examine the issue of God. In order to examine this truth, we need to incorporate God into our repository. Since we accept that there is a universe we develop God as part of our “Master”

The “Master” or repository

1.) The universe is consistent and all encompassing. (by definition)
2.) All truth is related and consistent
3.) God is only an idea!

The introduction of God into the repository needs to be done in a fashion that allows discovery rather than dogma - that is - authoritative principle, belief, or statement of the idea of God.

This freedom allows us to examine our Master that at this point only contains three points and allows us to come to resolution with our “Master”. We now are faced with our next step to define the universe. The universe that I define consists of matter, energy, and cognizance. Cognizance is defined as awareness. God can be defined as highest form of awareness; but still must remain only as an idea. This allows us to “redefine the Master” that now reads as follows:

1.) The universe is consistent and all encompassing. (by definition)
2.) All truth is related and consistent
3.) God can be defined as highest form of awareness. God is only an idea!

The next example creates the paradigms way of interacting socially and intellectually.. That lead reason false conclusions. No longer does one need to be bound by one’s own intellectual limits. Profound intellect is additive Rather than competing with another person about who’s idea is right the paradigm leads me to conclude that intellect is additive rather than competitive.

The universe is a very simple system. The reason I believe we find it so confounding is because as we evolved socially we have confounded ourselves into egocentric belief system.

Recognizing and using this paradigm the user takes on a global perspective. This view brings about as much wisdom as anyone would want. The question then becomes for what is the end use of the wisdom. The choice of course is with the user. It can be used for power in which case it can be hidden from others to gain personal advantage or the advantage of one group over another. Another use is to be in control of your own fate using one’s own moral compass. My personal use as a researcher was to test it and demonstrate my findings for critical review.

My conclusions drawn from the universal paradigm:
1.) All truth is related.

These first two truths caused me to found a repository so that it could be separated from the rest of the world’s compendium of information. This was a very important step for me. If one uses the paradigm incorrectly, it leads to false conclusions and a few false conclusions lead to the delusions that are so apparent in the world today.

Review of conclusions:
All truth is related.
Unquestionably, the universe is full of data points that can be called facts. There are dependant facts and independent facts. Along with questioning whether there could be the possibility of the existence of an independent fact in the universe, it makes sense to study how dependant facts are interrelated. This creates the imperative for having a personal repository in order to manage our perspective of truth and use the paradigm properly.

The dictionary defines truth as follows:
1.) A statement proven to be or accepted as true
2.) Conformity to fact or actuality
3.) Fidelity to an original or standard
4.) Sincerity; integrity

A statement proven to be or accepted as true

The first realization is that we must understand that our perspective limits us from truth comprehension. The dictionary definition reveals this. The criteria of accepting a truth must be seriously considered. As we develop our repository we must always be aware that everything we accept as a truth must be subject to revision using and including the universal paradigm.

Thank you for the opportunity to explain

11. I do not know of any proof that time exists. If you know of one, I'd like to see it. If one cannot prove time to exist how can one ask if it is limited?

12. Originally Posted by EtalU
Sorry for the philosophical discussion. I had hope not to debate.
Then why post on a DISCUSSION forum? Sheesh.

My methods of inquiry are somewhat different from yours. (one might define it as Socratic in nature).
Unfortunately, you are using your "method" to argue against science which is based on evidence. In that battle, science will always win. Because evidence trumps imagination.

The Universal Paradigm (As stated earlier)

1) WE COME TO THE MASTER FOR RESOLUTION
2) RESOLUTION REDEFINES THE MASTER
How about explaining what it means rather than just typing it again in capital letters.

Unfortunately our present repository of facts is untenable because of so many differing beliefs
Facts are independent of beliefs. For example, evolution happens even if Creationists believe it shouldn't happen.

In order to use the paradigm, it is necessary to create a repository of truths. Why a repository? An important reason for this is that simple truths are often clouded by delusive postulates. We can take our lesson from the way geometry theorems are explored. We can also take lessons from the society at large that accepts false notions as truths only to be deceived. In geometry, we proceed axiom by axiom to achieve our understanding. The repository is essential at first because of outside contamination. For most of us, our reality consists of accepted facts and notions. We accept some facts as true even though some of these truths conflict with each other. When using the paradigm we must be very mindful of these discrepancies. Because the universe is consistent, truths cannot be contradictory. Thus our repository must be consistent with the universe. We can however accept uncertainty of our understanding of a truth. Finally, we must realize that as our repository increases in scope, that any time there is conflicting information it resolved in a fashion that doesn’t cause us to believe in contradictory information.
That seems to be roughly what science does. (Although, because of the uncertainties you mention, it doesn't really deal in "truth".)

Examples:

In order to explore the paradigm, we’ve recast some perplexing questions in the framework of the paradigm. First let’s examine the issue of God. In order to examine this truth, we need to incorporate God into our repository. Since we accept that there is a universe we develop God as part of our “Master”
And here you depart from science by introducing something for which there is no evidence. This has nothing to do with physics and so we can ignore it.

The introduction of God into the repository needs to be done in a fashion that allows discovery rather than dogma - that is - authoritative principle, belief, or statement of the idea of God.
This obviously has nothing to do with "facts" or "truth" that you mentioned earlier. If you introduce random beliefs into your "truth repository" the it has no value at all.

The rest of your post is (a) nonsense and (b) nothing to do with physics or the subject of this thread. Please feel free to take this to a philosophy forum.

13. Originally Posted by EtalU
I do not know of any proof that time exists. If you know of one, I'd like to see it. If one cannot prove time to exist how can one ask if it is limited?
Look at the ordering of the posts in this thread. You replied to one posted earlier. I replied to yours after that. They all have timestamps on them.

You might as well say that you see no proof that computers or the Internet exists.

You seem to have lost your grip on reality.

If you want to discuss the metaphysics of time then you have come to the wrong place. This is a PHYSICS forum. As you appear to be almost completely ignorant of the subject and show zero interest in learning, you should probably go elsewhere.

14. Thank you for your perspective but there was a time when we humans had mathematical equations to explain the phases of the moon that demonstrated the reality that the earth was indeed the center of the universe. That the sun indeed revolved around the earth. I admit that our realities differ but let's respect each other's "grip". I'm more interested in truth than conflict. I respect the truth that neither of us know the absolute truth. We both know the relative truth.

Perhaps a thread can started to ponder the possibility of the following.
1.) If the "big bang" was the start of the universe (as we know it)
2.) Could the bang be so enormous that it completely consumed the entire singularity turning it into total energy.
3.) At that point, the universe ended.
4.) Today we are standing in awe somewhere in between those two events.
5.) Is it possible that the future happened already but we just haven't experienced it yet?

You might explore the Et al Theory as a critique

15. Originally Posted by EtalU
Thank you for your perspective but there was a time ...
Good. You admit time does exist after all. Glad to see you have recovered from that slight attack of insanity.

Perhaps a thread can started to ponder the possibility of the following.
1.) If the "big bang" was the start of the universe (as we know it)
There is no evidence of that.

2.) Could the bang be so enormous that it completely consumed the entire singularity turning it into total energy.
That doesn't really mean anything. You should probably learn a little bit of basic physics before attempting to use these words in a sentence.

You might explore the Et al Theory as a critique
I provided some comments on the most blatant errors in your "theory". You seem to have ignored them.

16. Please understand where I am coming from. I do not wish to attack your comfortably about time. There is not doubt that time exists in our relative perspective. Unfortunately the universe is not nor ever was a relative phenomenon. The universe is an absolute manifestation and in that frame I'm not so sure that time needs to exist. Perhaps a crude example of that might be when we look at the furthest constellation we see not the present but a cross section of relative events that you might think are historical events. The Et al Theory suggests that every event that has happened and will happen in the universe is there in its present form. This is my reality! It sounds to me like your reality is that the "present" is what you believe it to be. I find that your reality is as hard a pill to swallow as mine is to yours. I respect you view but can't accept it. We see the universe in its absolute form through the prism of relativity and need to believe that time exists. BUT DOES IT???

17. Originally Posted by EtalU
Please understand where I am coming from. I do not wish to attack your comfortably about time. There is not doubt that time exists in our relative perspective.
What does "our relative perspective" mean?

The universe is an absolute manifestation
What does that mean?

The Et al Theory suggests that every event that has happened and will happen in the universe is there in its present form.

This is my reality!
That must be very confusing for you. How do you know what day or even year it is if you see them all present at the same time? But also fascinating because you can tell us what happened to the Marie Celeste.

And of course, you can tell us next week's winning lottery numbers. This would be a good test of your claims.

18. I'm struggling to explain why you do not understand. First I assume that you know the difference between a fact, a theory, and an idea.
First of all when I personally discuss science I rarely consider something to be a fact especially when I discuss a theory. Einstein's work is not a fact it is a theory! As such I treat it as that.
Next comes an idea. For instance I don't necessarily believe in God but I will definitely say that I am a firm believer in the IDEA OF GOD. There is a big difference. I mentioned to you as well as stated in the theory the you have access to that there are two perspectives called absolute and relative As you can see in the theory time does not exist in the absolute perspective. So I must conclude that rather than believing that time is a fact, I must say that I believe that time as an idea. In your and my perspective in our relative environment. I understand time as well as you do. The Et al Theory concludes that in our present absolute universe every event that ever happened exists simultaneously. It sounds weird, but if you like you can pick apart theory and tell me where the math is wrong or you see other flaws. I've been working on this for 25 years or so . Your critique is much appreciated Thank you

19. Originally Posted by EtalU
I'm struggling to explain why you do not understand.
What makes you think I don't understand?

Where I have not understood, I have asked questions. You have ignored those questions or refused to answer. Why is that?

First I assume that you know the difference between a fact, a theory, and an idea.
I do. But I suspect you don't, given that you use "theory" in the title of this thread.

Einstein's work is not a fact it is a theory! As such I treat it as that.
However, a theory as soundly based and as well tested as Einstein's is about the closest thing we get to a "fact".

I mentioned to you as well as stated in the theory the you have access to that there are two perspectives called absolute and relative
And I asked you to explain what you meant by these terms. You refused to answer.

As you can see in the theory time does not exist in the absolute perspective. So I must conclude that rather than believing that time is a fact, I must say that I believe that time as an idea. In your and my perspective in our relative environment. I understand time as well as you do.
So you lied when you said that your model of time was "part of your reality". Fair enough.

The Et al Theory concludes that in our present absolute universe every event that ever happened exists simultaneously.
That is an old idea and a standard interpretation of General Relativity.

It sounds weird, but if you like you can pick apart theory and tell me where the math is wrong or you see other flaws. I've been working on this for 25 years or so . Your critique is much appreciated Thank you
And yet, you have ignored my comments and questions.

20. Sorry! Most likely I missed them. I've saved everything that you sent me. I'm just learning hoe=w to work this web site as soon as I find them I'll do my best to answer.

Thanks much and regards

21. About 14 billion years ago as we have extrapolated, an event occurred that we term “The Big Bang”. People that believe in relativity believe that it was the beginning of the universe. The Et Al Theory simply concludes that it was and is also the end point of the universe.
Et Al Theorem...
(Your comment) My main critique is that your theorem is soundly contradicted by the La Te (also spelled Latte in some texts) theorem, which builds on the works of Emmy Noether, Willem De Sitter, and the redoubtable Tarquin Fintim. Aside from being a delicious beverage, Latte enjoys approximately 13 times the number of citations as Et Al in referred journals (one does not count instances of "et al." in author lists).
(my answer) I haven't a clue what this means even after looking on line

Originally Posted by EtalU
About 14 billion years ago as we have extrapolated, an event occurred that we term “The Big Bang”.
(Your comment) There is no evidence for any such event.

(my comment) However evidence does suggest based on the trajectory of all moving matter that is observed in our present, through extrapolation, that there was a single “singularity” that existed approximately 14 billion years ago. I personally put more “stock” in wikipedia’s answer than yours

People that believe in relativity believe that it was the beginning of the universe.

(Your comment) Some people may believe that but there is no evidence for it.

(My comment) Again, theory is many times, relegated to surmising the cause by reviewing the effects

1.) Matter is temporal and relative
2.) Energy is timeless and absolute.

This is a key point!
Seeing is believing! Have you ever seen energy?

Just because Newton’s and Einstein’s abstractions (theories) explain things on our plane, doesn’t mean they are true!

I don’t necessarily agree that the Universe is a “relative phenomenon” I go with the assumption that the universe is an “absolute phenomenon”

I have one major disagreement with Einstein’s assumption THAT IS everyone must agree that the speed of light is constant. BIG FLAW in the theory. It SURELY works well in our relative perspective BUT I seriously believe that that idea breaks down in the reality that is beyond our perspective.

I believe that as the universe speeds up as indications are, we will begin to see our calculations of the speed of light to begin to change. We might have a clue to how long it will be for this to be observable and that will depend on how long it will take for the universe to speed up to our calculation of the speed of light.

(Your comment) Energy is not absolute. It is relative. For example, if I see a car moving past me then I know it has significant kinetic energy. But if I am moving with the car, then it has zero kinetic energy.
While I’m sure you can see the car, I don’t believe that you can see energy. Again, we are relegated to seeing the effects of energy based on what it does to matter.

On the speed of light in the absolute universe, the Et al Theory suggests that in the absolute universe LIGHT HAS NO SPEED.

Using the analogy of direct current verses alternating current, In our relative world direct current can be completed when the first electron causes its counterpart electron to close the circuit at its relative speed of light. So, the negative pole (cathode) is the origin and the positive pole (anode) is the end point. Using the vision of alternating current, we have neither a cathode nor an anode. The circuit has no beginning and any end plus electro magnetic forces (EMF). I believe that the Et al Theory suggests that the universe is JUST one BIG STATIC MANIFESTATION. It is much like a big electric circuit without wires or insulation interacting with itself electromagnetically. We, in our relative perspective are watching this deluded in the comfort that everything is relative. Maybe so, EXCEPT, Absolutely, there is no time as we believe it to be, light has no speed as we believe it does and energy and matter are indeed different perspectives of the same phenomenon.

The only question is if matter and/or energy exist as limited infinite quantities?

22. Originally Posted by EtalU
Sorry! Most likely I missed them. I've saved everything that you sent me. I'm just learning hoe=w to work this web site as soon as I find them I'll do my best to answer.
You just have to scroll up.

23. Originally Posted by EtalU
(Your comment) My main critique is that your theorem is soundly contradicted by the La Te (also spelled Latte in some texts) theorem, which builds on the works of Emmy Noether, Willem De Sitter, and the redoubtable Tarquin Fintim. Aside from being a delicious beverage, Latte enjoys approximately 13 times the number of citations as Et Al in referred journals (one does not count instances of "et al." in author lists).
(my answer) I haven't a clue what this means even after looking on line
That wasn't my comment. I am guessing it was a sort of joke.

Originally Posted by EtalU
About 14 billion years ago as we have extrapolated, an event occurred that we term “The Big Bang”.
(Your comment) There is no evidence for any such event.

(my comment) However evidence does suggest based on the trajectory of all moving matter that is observed in our present, through extrapolation, that there was a single “singularity” that existed approximately 14 billion years ago. I personally put more “stock” in wikipedia’s answer than yours
A singularity (i.e. the presence of infinities or divisions by zero in the mathematics) means that our theories don't work at that time. It is not a physical thing.

People that believe in relativity believe that it was the beginning of the universe.

(Your comment) Some people may believe that but there is no evidence for it.

(My comment) Again, theory is many times, relegated to surmising the cause by reviewing the effects
I'm not sure what that means. But it seems to confirm that you don't know what the word "theory" means.

1.) Matter is temporal and relative
2.) Energy is timeless and absolute.
What does that mean?

What does it mean for matter to be temporal?

What does it mean for matter to be relative?

What does it mean for energy to be timeless?

What does it mean for matter to be absolute?

How does this relate to the fact that matter can be converted to energy and vice versa?

This is a key point!
It is a shame it doesn't make sense then.

Seeing is believing! Have you ever seen energy?
Energy is a property of things. I have see the effects of energy. That is all you can expect to see. Have you seen mass or electric charge or density?

Just because Newton’s and Einstein’s abstractions (theories) explain things on our plane, doesn’t mean they are true!
Of course not. Science has nothing to do with truth. But thanks again for confirming that you don't have clue about what science is.

I don’t necessarily agree that the Universe is a “relative phenomenon” I go with the assumption that the universe is an “absolute phenomenon”
As neither of those appear to mean anything (and you refuse to explain them) we can just ignore that.

I have one major disagreement with Einstein’s assumption THAT IS everyone must agree that the speed of light is constant.
And yet all experiments and observations confirm it. So I will stick with reality and ignore your opinions, if that's OK.

BIG FLAW in the theory. It SURELY works well in our relative perspective BUT I seriously believe that that idea breaks down in the reality that is beyond our perspective.
What is "the reality that is beyond our perspective"?

I believe that as the universe speeds up as indications are, we will begin to see our calculations of the speed of light to begin to change.
Do you have any theoretical basis for that? Or is just a crazy guess?

We might have a clue to how long it will be for this to be observable and that will depend on how long it will take for the universe to speed up to our calculation of the speed of light.
If you had a theory rather than just random ideas, you would be able to say how long.

On the speed of light in the absolute universe, the Et al Theory suggests that in the absolute universe LIGHT HAS NO SPEED.
What is the "absolute universe"?

Why do you refuse to explain?

Also, thanks for providing yet another data point for the correlation between ignorant crackpots and the inability to use the quote function.

"I am smart enough to show Einstein wrong but I can't click the Quote button". Impressive.

24. (Your comment) However, a theory as soundly based and as well tested as Einstein's is about the closest thing we get to a "fact"

(Answer) That still doesn't qualify it to be completely a fact. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle flies in the face of relativity

“One of the biggest problems with quantum experiments is the seemingly unavoidable tendency of humans to influence the situation and velocity of small particles”.

The Et al Theory appears to have many more points of agreement with the two theories than they do with each other.

(Your comment)Then how does all of physics work?

(Answer) It works darn well from our relative perspective.

Your reasoning reminds me of Plato’s "The Allegory of the Cave". This allegory gets to the heart of my rebuttal.
"You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died."

Answer (Unless you believe in the fashion that the people in Plato's, Allegory of the Cave believe!

This brings us to a very interesting point that you raised.
6.) Light is timeless and has no speed; it traverses the universe instantly.
(Your comment) Nonsense. Light travels at a finite speed.
(Answer) In my view Einstein's calculations of relativity equate the speed of light as a function of time that never changes.

4.) There are only three definable elements in the universe: matter, energy, and cognizance.
matter = material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons, that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy.
energy = a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work.
cognizance = awareness as in "I think therefore I am"

1.) Ø =¥. ZERO = INFINITY.
Your comment) Very obviously nonsense. Infinity is larger than any number. While zero is not.

This to me comes under the heading of "What came first - the chicken or the egg?
You are talking about mathematics that was designed to explain relationships in the universe
The universe was not crafted to explain math.
That reminds me of a line from Voltaire
"And when Pangloss demonstrates the principles of cause and effect, he cites the nose as an example. It was made to wear glasses, so the cause of noses are spectacles, while the effects of spectacles are noses. Based on these premises, Pangloss concludes that this is the best of all possible worlds, and all is well.".
I believe that we have not developed the math in such a way to explain the universe
Relativity like math is a simple toy to try to explain the universe. I find it impossible to believe that relativity or math as we know it can be used to examine the concept of holism.

The Et al Theory is as simple as (01, 10, 11 that is binary for 1, 2, 3)
01) = Matter
10) = Energy
11) = Cognizance

It recognizes that the universe is simpler than we think and that there is unity of all things. All we need do is see connections

Matter and energy were probably the cause of cognizant beings (unless it was the other way around)

(My comment) This refutes his position as demonstrated above. If one is traveling at the speed of light time stands still and, therefore, does not exist.

(Your comment my favorite) One cannot travel at the speed of light and therefore this objection is irrelevant (and wrong).?

(Answer) Not so fast with your irrelevancy! Although you and I can't travel at the speed of light, there is one particle that does. That is a photon!

Therefore, if a photon is traveling at the speed of light (which it does) then according to Einstein time stands still and, therefore, time does not exist for the photon.
That may be a small point but I suggest that it supports the idea that when we observe light we are actually observing something that is not in our relative perspective and are observing a phenomenon in an absolute perspective.

Thank you. Your feedback will be much appreciated

25. Originally Posted by EtalU
(Your comment) However, a theory as soundly based and as well tested as Einstein's is about the closest thing we get to a "fact"

(Answer) That still doesn't qualify it to be completely a fact.
Of course not. That's why I didn't say that.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle flies in the face of relativity
Really? What makes you think that?

In my view Einstein's calculations of relativity equate the speed of light as a function of time that never changes.
What does that mean? That the speed of light is constant? Einstein's theory of relativity makes no such claim. The theory still works even if the speed of light is not constant. However, experimental tests have show that, as far as we can tell, the speed of light does not change over time.

4.) There are only three definable elements in the universe: matter, energy, and cognizance.
matter = material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons, that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy.
energy = a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work.
cognizance = awareness as in "I think therefore I am"
This is nonsense. There are many other definable properties. Mass, charge, length, temperatures.

And awareness is not a fundamental property. It emerges from the operations of our brains.

1.) Ø =¥. ZERO = INFINITY.
Your comment) Very obviously nonsense. Infinity is larger than any number. While zero is not.

This to me comes under the heading of "What came first - the chicken or the egg?
You are talking about mathematics that was designed to explain relationships in the universe
Then what are you talking about, if not mathematics? You can't just use words to mean something different.

You might as well say cheese = chocolate.

If your ZERO doesn't mean the mathematical concept of zero and your INFINITY does not mean the mathematical concept of infinity, then please don't use those words.

Relativity like math is a simple toy to try to explain the universe. I find it impossible to believe that relativity or math as we know it can be used to examine the concept of holism.
I don't know what you mean by holism. But expect the theory of relativity to explain things that it is not designed to explain is just stupid. You might as well say that the theory of evolution can't explain the motion of the planets.

The Et al Theory is as simple as (01, 10, 11 that is binary for 1, 2, 3)
01) = Matter
10) = Energy
11) = Cognizance

It recognizes that the universe is simpler than we think and that there is unity of all things. All we need do is see connections
It is not a theory because you have no mathematical model, you make no testable predictions and it has not been extensively confirmed by experiment.

What it is, is a load of random thoughts with a few sciency sounding words mixed in.

(Answer) Not so fast with your irrelevancy! Although you and I can't travel at the speed of light, there is one particle that does. That is a photon!

Therefore, if a photon is traveling at the speed of light (which it does) then according to Einstein time stands still and, therefore, time does not exist for the photon.
That is not a valid extrapolation because the photon is not a valid frame of reference. The reason for this would be obvious to anyone who actually understood the theory.

That may be a small point but I suggest that it supports the idea that when we observe light we are actually observing something that is not in our relative perspective and are observing a phenomenon in an absolute perspective.
As you refuse to define what "relative perspective" and "absolute perspective" mean, this is a meaningless statement.

Your feedback will be much appreciated
Or ignored.

Please use the QUOTE button next time.

It is the Big Button labelled "QUOTE".

It quotes things. Sheesh.

26. (Your comment) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle flies in the face of relativity
Really? What makes you think that?

The basic point is well known. Einstein never accepted Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as a fundamental physical law. To quote Einstein “God does not play with dice" That is what I meant about that.
Q: How/Why are Quantum Mechanics and Relativity incompatible? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist
You can see for yourself on "How/Why are Quantum Mechanics and Relativity incompatible?"
They are both very well respected pieces of science.

Relativity stands up well in the observable universe that only observes the domain of the present without consideration for the past or the future. The absolute perspective takes into account past present and future as one might characterize as holism.
A good example of this is relitivities effort to explain something "???" called "dark matter" in order to justify why the universe is speeding up instead of cooling and slowing down. Mysterous as it may seem, the Et al Theory predicts this without resorting to an idea like dark matter.

Nevertheless poor Heisenberg is at a disadvantage to people that believe Relativity is "THE ANSWER"

In my view Einstein's calculations of relativity equate the speed of light as a function of time that never changes.

(Your comment) What does that mean? That the speed of light is constant? Einstein's theory of relativity makes no such claim. The theory still works even if the speed of light is not constant. However, experimental tests have show that, as far as we can tell, the speed of light does not change over time.

Answer I disagree! Einstein's Theory is founded on this axiom called the constant C you know E = MC squared. You might refer to the link below for clarification

How did Einstein come up with the idea that speed of light is constant to all observers moving or steady?

4.) There are only three definable elements in the universe: matter, energy, and cognizance.
matter = material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons, that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy.
energy = a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work.
cognizance = awareness as in "I think therefore I am"
(Your comment)This is nonsense. There are many other definable properties. Mass, charge, length, temperatures.

I believe that you misunderstood! I did not say "definable properties", I said "definble elements" in the universe.

Since Galileo was almost hung for the mere suggestion that the earth revolved around the sun and had to claim that theology was the queen of the sciences, that whole affair in the late 1500's separated an obvious possible property (or elememt) called cognizance from scientific debate. I can't see any reason for cognizance to be out of the realm of science. I raise it to the possible element status just in case God does exist. I thought it prudent to give it scientific status since I've not met anyone around to deny that cognizance exists. Thank the stars for small favors! At least we humans are egocentric enough to not "think" ourselves out of the universe.

(Your comment) I don't know what you mean by holism. But expect the theory of relativity to explain things that it is not designed to explain is just stupid. You might as well say that the theory of evolution can't explain the motion of the planets.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holism
Definition of holism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism
The term Holism was coined by J C Smuts in Holism and Evolution.[3][4] It was Smuts' opinion that Holism is a concept that represents all of the wholes in the universe, and these wholes are the real factors in the universe. Further, that Holism also denoted a theory of the universe in the same vein as Materialism and Spiritualism.[3]:120–121

(Answer) Sorry for your uncomfortability! Sometimes people "need to think 'outside the box'" in order to explain the unexplainble.
The concept of "holism" is a good starting point. It helps me postulate something "unimaginable" up to now! I take holism to mean and include the "idea" that the absolute universe is a different perspective than we humans perceive. The difference being:
The relative perspective is a snapshot of the universe from a point of time that is always in the present perspective. The absolute perspective takes in account the probability that we are misperceiving because we cannot see things as the really are because everything changes in the snapshots that we see from frame to frame and what we percieve to be the same object snapshot to snapshot are not the same at all. Just as in a direct current circuit, it is not the electron at the cathode that needs to get to the anode of the circuit to cause completion. as measured by doing the math it is the cause of the electron at the cathode point to cause the electron closest to the anode to cause completion.

Because I value your scecpticism I'd like to give two additional examples: the first is the Ideal gas law that explains anomalies and the second is an allegory that I consider the reason science is "stuck" between Einstein and Heisenberg.

Let's say that You and I are both scientists and we both believe the world is "flat" and we have a good grasp of trigonometry. We both go up in a hot air balloon to measure topography with a string to constantly confirm our altitude and come with a scaled map of the terrain that we are sure is flat knowing that it is an empty lake that fills up from time to time and when we measure it we find that every point in the system reads the same depth. We are both very convinced that everything is totally accurate but because I am a "super nerd", I decide to confirm calculations. Now! I come up with data that doesn't confirm our findings and tell you about it, you tell me that I can't measure worth a "bleep" and continue using all the other to defame and disparage the discussion that you have already used. Does this tactic really serve science? I say to you "Mr. Good Navigator" we both don't know where we are and I begin to question whether or not you think you do.
https://www.thoughtco.com/ideal-gas-law-607531
(Your comment #1) Then what are you talking about, if not mathematics? You can't just use words to mean something different.
You might as well say cheese = chocolate.
If your ZERO doesn't mean the mathematical concept of zero and your INFINITY does not mean the mathematical concept of infinity, then please don't use those words.
(Your comment #2) It is not a theory because you have no mathematical model, you make no testable predictions and it has not been extensively confirmed by experiment.
(Answer) For simplicity, this answer covers both. The mathematical model is simpler than Einstein's, that is E= M or to reverse it M = E assuming snapshot #1 represents the single singularity whereas snapshot #2 represents the universe immediately post big bang. As I've stated before, just before the big bang there was a single singularity of an unknown quantity of Matter represented as M. Because of an unknown reason, that singularity completely converted into energy for a short or long time, if time can be construed to exist under such conditions. Therefore the mathematical model for the absolute universe is hereby defined as E = M. The amount of Matter universe is fixed now as it was in the beginning to fixed quantity defined as M. This is the absolute quantity that has the ability to exist in our universe.
This because we believe that matter is inter-convertible with energy, as Merriam Webster's dictionary definition explains and the Et al Theory accepts as true. Now, at post big bang, represented by snapshot #2 all of the matter converted to energy and produced a maximum fixed quantity of energy quantified by our current concept governed be E= MC squared and represented by E. This quantity is also “fixed" because once all the singularity is consumed no more energy can be produced.
The next part gets really interesting. Because of the absoluteness of the universe our present did "not” occur after snapshot #2, the theory suggests that the present as well as every event that has happened or will happen has already happened and resides between snapshot #'s 1 & 2. Snapshot #2 was the end of the absolute universe. A good indication of this is the surprising reality is that the universe is speeding up instead of slowing down as relativity suggests that it should. It suggests a problem when one doesn't have the correct perspective viewing an absolute universe through a relative prism. Maybe we need a "refractive index correction" so to speak"

Once again thanks for your astute critiques affording me the opportunity to explain. I look forward to your feedback and thank you again

27. Originally Posted by EtalU
(Your comment) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle flies in the face of relativity
Really? What makes you think that?

The basic point is well known. Einstein never accepted Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as a fundamental physical law. To quote Einstein “God does not play with dice" That is what I meant about that.
People's opinions are not science. Not even Einstein's. This is one of the occasions where Einstein was wrong.

A good example of this is relitivities effort to explain something "???" called "dark matter" in order to justify why the universe is speeding up instead of cooling and slowing down.
OK. That is priceless. You are so stunningly ignorant, I am going to have to give up now. But, just to correct your latest mind-numbing idiocy, in case anyone intelligent reads the discussion:

1. Dark matter is not "invented" by relativity. It is based on observation of the real world. You do not need to use relativity, even Newtonian gravity shows the need for dark matter.

2. Dark matter has nothing to do with the accelerating rate of expansion of the universe.

3. You may be thinking of "dark energy". That also is not "invented" by relativity but is based on observation of the real world.

Please go and learn some basic physics before attempting anything like this. You are just embarrassing yourself.

I've been working on this for 25 years or so
Just think how far you could have got if you had spent a fraction of that time studying, instead of making up puerile crap.

I know. Studying is hard work. It is much easier to just make up fairy tales that make sense to you. But it is pretty insulting to those who have put in years of actual work, to pretend that your immature and ignorant posturing has the same sort of value.

28. Sorry for your uncomfortability! Sometimes people "need to think 'outside the box'"
Sheesh. To "think outside the box" you first have to learn little bit about what is inside the box. (Actually, you need to know a lot, you need to be an expert before you can start thinking outside the box.) You don't even know where the box is, what shape or colour it is, or what it is made of.

29. Originally Posted by EtalU
Sorry for your uncomfortability! Sometimes people "need to think 'outside the box'" in order to explain the unexplainble.
That's self-serving nonsense used by ignorant blowhards in a weak attempt to present themselves as superior to real scientists who actually study the subject. If I had a <insert trivial currency denomination here> for every time I saw this on a science forum, I would be wealthier than Bill Gates.

Feynman correctly observed that science is the exercise of "imagination in a strait-jacket." One MUST know where the box is. Observation and experiment constrain what you are allowed to imagine. To be outside of that box is to waste time idly speculating about how many invisible pink unicorns equals one toenail. Or to assert that "zero = infinity" as you have here.

The "outside of the box" gambit already removes what infinitesimal credibility you may once have enjoyed. Your inability to master the use of the quote function erases that small remainder. If you can't handle a task of such trivial complexity, why should any of us listen to you prattle on about your delusions of grandeur?

Now take your meds and hit the books. You've utterly wasted 25 years of developing this nonsense. Time to study real science.

30. Thank you for your astute scientific observations that surely qualify you to be the top running candidate for the "Pangloss Award."You would make dear old Voltaire proud to learn that people like you are still around in this century . Anything of such nature coming from you while not disappointing is almost a compliment. I don't consider our discussions a waste of time and I must say I've learned from them. If you learned what I did, you would probably be better for it. Going forward you seem to always think that you are right and especially now is one of those times. even though you have said absolutely ZERO in case you are interested that's math for absolutely nothing. It says a lot about you when you are confronted with things that you don't understand. Good fortune!

31. Originally Posted by EtalU
Thank you for your astute scientific observations that surely qualify you to be the top running candidate for the "Pangloss Award."
You are permitted to affect such juvenile smugness only after you win a Nobel. Yes, it's juvenile because you imagine that science is static and tradition-bound, rather than what it actually is. Do you know nothing about the history of science? -- we've gone from "atoms may not exist" to "the universe is 13.8Gyr old" and "there be quarks", all in less than a century. That progress wasn't the result of ignoramuses just randomly making up crap in an armchair. It was the result of a massive collective effort by creative minds who focused their thinking on models whose predictions would be in accord with measurements.

Until you win the Nobel (and not the IgNobel), you will notice concerned stares and hear giggling. (Yes, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan.)

32. Originally Posted by EtalU
Thank you for your astute scientific observations...
Because you are too stupid to click the button labelled QUOTE it is not clear who this is addressed to. Not that it matters. No one cares.

 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Forum Rules