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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
No, you probably have a BETTER understanding of vector spin than any
Physicist, but they feel the freedom to dream up assorted assumptions as
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!
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
C Johnson, Theoretical Physicist, Physics Degree from Univ of Chicago