Thank you for your reply. I don't mean to imply that there's any kind of direct mathematical relationship between Relativity and Wittgenstein's philosophy, or that Relativity is responsible for any emergent uncertainty in our thinking. It just seemed to me that he was pointing at a certain 'brand' of common error or 'illusion' or paradox that can creep into our worldview if proper care isn't taken to account for the frame that the reference was taken from. That there are certain common 'illusions' that language allows us to create that could (at least partially) be eliminated if we understood that it makes no sense to talk about them because proper care hasn't been taken to account for the frames of reference of that the elements of the argument are rooted in. If proper care had been taken, there would be nothing to talk about.

The reason Einstein is the most famous scientist isn't really because of E=MC^2, etc.. (Although that's definitely part of it). It's because he more or less obliterated the previously held Newtonian world view by simply pointing out that many of the difficult problems that we have in our understanding of the world could be easily solved by taking care to properly account for different frames of reference involved. What this lead to was such an incredibly counter intuitive shift in our previously held world view that it decimated deeply fortified pillars of our understanding, and evaporated many of our 'illusions' about the Universe, while at the same time, it answered many of our hardest questions perfectly. It was such a revolutionary catastrophe to what we thought we knew about the world that most people, over a hundred years later, still wrestle with it. But it's one of the most reliable scientific theories we've got, it's used every day, and has never been proven wrong.

It's this shift in the way of thinking about and 'measuring' the world without a preferred reference frame, and this 'type' of error that I thought I saw being pointed at in On Certainty. Although he pointed at different things in different ways along the way.

On Certainty is the only Wittgenstein and the only true philosophy I've ever really read, so I may have misinterpreted what was being said. I did find it challenging. I'm definitely more of an armchair physicist than an armchair philosopher, but I enjoyed reading it.