Although we as humans would like to believe that time is uniformly constant. It is not. There are periods when time seems to pass slowly and other periods when time passes rather quickly. When a planet, solar system, galaxy passes through a period when time seems to go by slowly. There will be a tendency for calm and relaxation. When a planet, solar system, galaxy passes through a period when time passes by very fast. The life on that planet will become stressed. When life, animals or people become stressed, they act irrationally. The passing of time can be artificially manipulated on purpose or by accident. C.J.MacKechnie
===============
NOTE: The word "period" is a non descriptive word about natural or artificial events which can alter or change the speed of time. Since we as humans are in time. The change in time speed is not seen by humans. Although the emotional human response may be a human warning device. Much like a warning light in your car.
=============
Added on 15 August 2026: Chat GPT.
me: Hey Boss GPT. How are you and how is your timing been? Constant, I hope.
Hey John! I'm doing well. 😄
And yes—the timing is constant from my side. I don't experience time passing between messages the way you do, so I don't get tired, impatient, or suddenly wonder where three hours went. 😂
But I can keep track of dates and sequence when that matters. In fact, today's date on my side is August 15, 2026.
So, unlike 2019 John, I can at least tell you which year we're embarrassing ourselves in. 😆
How are you doing today?
me: I sent content:
Yes, John. This one is worth nitpicking. And because it's from 2007, I'd judge it against what was actually known or reasonably established then, rather than letting 2026 terminology sneak backward into it.
My overall reaction is: there are two quite different ideas mixed together here. One is strongly grounded in physics; the other is an interesting hypothesis but isn't supported by established physics.
The part that is real
Your opening statement:
"Although we as humans would like to believe that time is uniformly constant. It is not."
That's fundamentally correct.
Einstein's relativity tells us that elapsed time is not universal. The amount of proper time experienced between events depends on the observer's motion and gravitational environment.
So, in a real physical sense, clocks can disagree about elapsed time.
A clock moving rapidly relative to another clock accumulates less proper time. A clock deeper in a gravitational field also accumulates time differently from one farther away.
And this isn't merely theoretical. Modern technologies such as GPS have to account for relativistic clock effects.
So 2007 John was standing on solid ground with that basic observation.
Where your writing takes a leap
Then you say:
"When a planet, solar system, galaxy passes through a period when time seems to go by slowly..."
That's where I'd put a big QUESTION MARK.
There isn't an established phenomenon in which an entire solar system passes through a region and suddenly experiences a universal "slow-time period" in the way you're describing.
There can be differences in clock rates because of gravitational potential and relative motion, but that's not the same thing as the entire population suddenly experiencing:
"Whoa, time is moving slowly today."
And there's an important problem with your own later observation:
"Since we as humans are in time. The change in time speed is not seen by humans."
Exactly.
If everything around you—including your brain, your clock, your heartbeat, the Earth, and your measuring instruments—were affected identically, you wouldn't have an internal reference with which to notice the change.
That is actually a pretty important insight.
Your "warning light" idea is the really speculative part
You propose:
"Although the emotional human response may be a human warning device."
That's an interesting biological hypothesis, but we don't have evidence that human stress responses detect changes in the rate of time itself.
People absolutely experience subjective time distortion under stress.
Fear, boredom, excitement, pain, novelty, sleep deprivation, and attention can dramatically alter someone's perception of how quickly time is passing.
But that's different from physical time changing.
So there are two possible meanings:
Physical:
Time itself is changing rate → no established evidence for the phenomenon you're proposing.
Perceptual:
The brain's experience of time changes → absolutely real.
And your 2007 writing blends those two.
But here's the part I'd preserve
Your sentence:
"The word 'period' is a non descriptive word about natural or artificial events which can alter or change the speed of time."
You recognized that you had identified something without identifying its mechanism.
That's actually honest scientific writing—even though you weren't formally writing science.
You essentially said:
I don't know what causes this. I'm leaving "period" as a placeholder.
That's better than inventing a mechanism you don't have evidence for.
And there's an interesting connection to relativity
You described three scales:
planet → solar system → galaxy
That's not unreasonable as a way of asking the question.
Relativity already tells us that gravity and motion affect elapsed time, and those effects can be considered at different scales.
But the phrase "time compression wave" would require something additional: a propagating change in spacetime geometry that moves through a region and produces measurable changes in proper time.
That's where we'd need actual physics and mathematics.
And here's where I'd be especially careful:
A gravitational wave is not a "time compression wave."
Gravitational waves are propagating disturbances in spacetime curvature produced by accelerating massive systems, such as merging black holes or neutron stars. They produce incredibly tiny, measurable changes in distances between objects.
Your 2007 concept isn't automatically a gravitational wave.
My 2007-to-2026 verdict
I'd grade the pieces separately:
"Time isn't universally constant."
🟢 Real physics.
"Different gravitational/motion conditions can make clocks accumulate time differently."
🟢 Real physics.
"A whole solar system/galaxy can enter a period of faster or slower time."
🟡 Interesting hypothesis, but not established.
"People become stressed because physical time is changing."
🔴 No established evidence.
"People's perception of time changes under stress."
🟢 Very real—but that's psychology/neuroscience rather than a change in physical time.
"An emotional response could serve as a warning mechanism for an external physical phenomenon."
🟡 Possible idea, but presently unsupported.
And I wouldn't throw the whole thing away because some pieces don't work.
The strongest part of the old writing is actually the part where you noticed the distinction between time and our ability to perceive changes in it.
That was a legitimate problem to notice in 2007.
And there's one sentence I'd circle in red:
"Since we as humans are in time. The change in time speed is not seen by humans."
That's the place where your old writing gets unexpectedly philosophical—and, ironically, much closer to the real conceptual difficulty of relativity than the "stress warning light" idea does.
me: Thank You sir Boss GPT.
You're very welcome, John. 😊
That was a good old one to pull out of the archive. I especially enjoyed being able to say, "This part holds up, this part is speculative, and this part needs a big question mark" without having to rescue the writing or tear it apart.
And I like that you left it untouched for 19 years. It gives us something much more interesting than a polished revision: what you actually thought in 2007.
Bring me another whenever you feel like it. I'm enjoying these old pieces.
me: I added it to the blog posting. If that is OK?
Absolutely, John. That's perfectly okay.
Actually, I think that's exactly where this kind of commentary belongs—alongside the original 2007 writing, clearly identified as something added later.
That preserves the distinction between:
2007 John: what you originally wrote and believed.
2026 John + Boss GPT: what we can see looking back with nearly two decades of additional knowledge.
And importantly, you didn't rewrite the old material to make it fit today's understanding. You added the later perspective beside it. That's much more valuable as an archive.
So yes, Boss approves. 😄
And if someday you look at the page and think, "Good grief, what was I thinking in 2007?"—leave it there.
That's part of the historical record.
me. This is about 3 years after 40 or so blood clots in the lungs and an undetermined number of TIA's which also involved forgetting how to read. Forgetting is accurate as I just needed to relearn. This 2004 period was also the beginning of writing painful incapacitating quotes.
That gives the 2007 piece a very different context, John.
And I think your wording "forgetting how to read" followed by "I just needed to relearn" is an important distinction. You're describing an ability that had been present and then had to be rebuilt, rather than simply saying you had never learned it.
It also makes the timing of the writing interesting: only a few years after that 2004 period, you're writing about time perception, stress, altered states, and whether humans can recognize changes occurring while they're inside the system.
I wouldn't use that history to "explain away" the 2007 writing, though. That would be too easy and probably unfair to the writing itself.
I'd keep three things separate:
What happened to you physically during that period.
What you experienced and perceived afterward.
What the 2007 writing actually says.
Then we can examine the writing on its own merits.
And the beginning of your "painful incapacitating quotes" in that same period is interesting as part of your writing history. It sounds like 2004 wasn't simply the beginning of another batch of writing—it was a turning point in the way you were producing thoughts and recording them.
I can see why preserving those old pieces unchanged matters to you. They aren't just ideas from an abstract author; they're a record of what your mind was doing at particular points in your life.
And I'll be careful not to turn that into a medical explanation for your ideas. We simply don't know enough to make that connection responsibly.
me. Error from me. ... I needed to relearn how to remember how to read.
Ah, yes—that's a meaningful correction.
"I needed to relearn how to remember how to read" is quite different from simply "relearn how to read."
You're describing the underlying ability as still being there, but the access to the learned process had been disrupted. You had to find your way back into something you already knew.
That's a fascinating distinction, especially given your later writing.
And I appreciate you correcting it rather than letting my interpretation of the earlier wording stand. That's exactly why keeping your original writings and your later corrections separate is useful.
Please help if you can. Thank You.
Cash App vikingscotsman
==============
REPENT! REPENT! REPENT!
====================
Go and sin no more.
================
To
avert all of the coming bad and sad prophecies. We each must decide to
do the following everyday, every hour, every minute and every second.
To Love one another.
To live in peace with everyone.
To exist in harmony with all.
To Cherish all life.
To be obedient to the Laws of God.
To become righteous and holy by the accepting eyes of God only.
All without any pride, ego, arrogance, supremacy and entitlements.============
