Warping of Space - Some Incorrect Assumptions

Nearly all scientists now believe that the fabric of space is WARPED due to some things which Einstein had said. That idea has gotten so common and popular that nearly everyone seems to believe it! They are so wrong that it is laughable. And it is all based on really stupid logic! Einstein DID say something along that line, but REALLY different! The usual claim today is that gravity of the Sun causes a warping of the space around it, where third-dimension warps then are shown in artistic renditions. But that is patently ridiculous!

Gravity does not and can not SELECTIVELY distort one axis of space in deference to the other two dimensions. It is a ridiculous idea and claim! What Einstein HAD said was that the TIME dimension gets warped by gravitation, which IS true. But it is a really tiny effect. The rate that time passes on Earth IS altered by this effect, but it is only about ONE SECOND EFFECT in seven years of time!

Text Font Face
Text Size
(for printing)
As a "good" Physicist, I try to never "apply assumptions" and entirely rely on solid facts and strict logic. It does not always work, but I find it a wonderful approach to almost everything!

As to "neutrinos" or "the Twins Paradox" or "Black Holes" or "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy", in each case I am very uncomfortable with the wild assumptions that seem to have been applied when those ideas were first speculated.

Public Service
Self-Sufficiency - Many Suggestions

Environmental Subjects

Scientific Subjects

Advanced Physics

Social Subjects

Religious Subjects

Public Services Home Page

Main Menu
Regarding neutrinos, separate from the reasoning I arrived at ten years ago regarding the NIST data patterns, I have always wondered how ANYONE ever justified two really major assumptions which seem absolutedly incompatible with each other. One is that neutrinos pass through the entire Earth very freely, and through everything else. The other is that processes in the Sun "must" generate the neutrinos we see.

Two hundred years ago, a brilliant guy named Olbers realized that there are apparently so many stars that he noted that ANY direction must certainly eventually encounter the brilliant surface of a star. So the Olbers Paradox was why it was dark at night! The sky should be just as bright at night as during the day. It took about a hundred years before it was realized that there was a lot of "gases" in our Galaxy and in the Universe, which absorbs some of the light.

But IF the assumption about neutrinos is true, then we SHOULD be receiving neutrinos from trillions of stars, and the total number of neutrinos we should detect should be hundreds of thousands of times greater than the number that another assumption says the Sun sends to us.

I find it humorous that various Physicists argue over "exact numbers" detected in experiments, and they claim that 2/3 as many or 3/2 times as many should be true. But it sure seems to me that the logic and Olbers insists that we should be receiving hundreds of thousands of times as many (only a very few of which come from the Sun)

Related to that, they do all such experiments in deep mines, to try to avoid effects of cosmic rays. But the Earth is chock full of Uranium, Radium, Radon, Thorium, etc, atoms, which if other assumptions are true, should also be producing more neutrinos, and right nearby! Such effects seem to be totally neglected!

I would just like to see "clean" logic from Physicists, which WAS still basically true in the 1960s and 1970s, but which seems to have gone away today! Anyone who can dream up some outrageous idea becomes the darling if physics!

In recent years, I have become more fascinated with an available experiment that would not be very expensive. which would (finally) provide true scientific evidence regarding Einstein's General Relativity. For about the last eight years, I have tried to get either NASA or ESA to soft-land several atomic clocks on the surface of the Moon. By Einstein, in that weaker gravitational field, the clocks should run at a different rate than here on the surface of the Earth. My calculations suggest that Moon clocks should run slower by about 1/7 second per year, which in Physics terms is HUGE.

No one has ever been smart enough to yet solve Einstein's set of Tensor Calculus equations of General Relativity, and so about 1960, an "assumption" was made that really seems absolutely wrong. That assumption allowed far simpler solutions to Einstein's equations. But that questionable assumption has caused the Physics community to ASSUME that time (must) run FASTER on the Moon (by about the same differential). A cheap and easy experiment could "confirm General Relativity" and also either confirm or deny the validity of that assumption.

There is NO doubt in my personal mind that I am now more than a second older than I would have been if I had lived on the surface of the Moon!

And it seems that absolutely no one cares about doing such a simple experiment!

If you want to "annoy" Physicists, talk to them about "space warping"! They made lots more of bad assumptions, and they can easily be shown to "be confused"!

ANY Physicist who decides he can explain Einstein's "space warping" immediately makes a terrible assumption! They seem to assume that the Universe is "two-dimensional" (X-Y), and they then start claiming warping in the Z axis! It is a silly idea, which a schoolchild could probably correct them on!

However, Einstein WAS right about a "warping" effect, but it was VERY different than any Physicist thinks! The "warping" is in the FOURTH dimension, time! And it is a REALLY small effect!

Actually, my proposed Moon Cesium clock experiment would SHOW the "distortion" effect, near any large body in the Universe. The effect is pretty simple and obvious, but totally different from what anyone tries to describe! Funny!

No, you probably have a BETTER understanding of vector spin than any Physicist, but they feel the freedom to dream up assorted assumptions as they desire!

For ANYONE to claim that spin is in the Z axis is pretty outrageous! In one second, an electron revolves many billions of times, and they apparently ASSUME that in THEIR universe, an electron stays well behaved forever! Also, funny!

This presentation was first placed on the Internet in October 2012.

This page - - - - is at
This subject presentation was last updated on - -

Link to the Public Services Home Page


Link to the Public Services Main Menu


E-mail to: http://mb-soft.com/index.html

C Johnson, Theoretical Physicist, Physics Degree from Univ of Chicago