# My Lost Relativity Masterpiece, Explained

This common illustration of how gravity works in general relativity is possibly the worst scientific analogy ever invented. It should be banned forever.

Yesterday I mentioned in passing that the product of my dex-fueled nights a couple of years ago was a tutorial on special and general relativity. Why? Beats me. Ask the dex.

Several people have asked me to post this masterpiece of pop science, but I’m afraid I can’t do that. Before I explain that, though, here were my goals. I wanted to explain relativity without using a number of tropes that are almost universal in relativity books:

• No coordinate systems
• No inertial frames
• No aether
• No observers—only measuring devices
• No trampolines to explain gravity
• No math more complicated than a square root

Beyond this, my overarching goal was to try to persuade readers that time and space really are inextricably linked together. That is, I wanted to do it in a way that threaded through the entire tutorial and eventually made sense emotionally, not just mathematically. This is, I think, not truly possible thanks to the wiring of our brains, but I wanted to get close.

Now, some of these tropes, like the first two bullets, are just plain hard to understand if you don’t have any background. That’s why I wanted to avoid using them. Some, like the traditional “trampoline” to illustrate gravity in general relativity, are wildly misleading. And the last bullet is a two-edged sword: there’s no hard math, but there is math. I’m not convinced that you can do even a modestly decent job of explaining relativity with literally no math.

Anyway, I mostly accomplished this, although I think I may have caved in and finally mentioned inertial frames toward the end. So why can’t I post it? Is it because I’m embarrassed to let people see my writing? Please. Is it because I’m afraid of criticism? Nah. My overarching goal, after all, was to talk about relativity very differently than it’s normally talked about, and this is bound to attract boatloads of criticism.¹ It’s all part of the job.

No, the problem is that my tutorial is wrong. At least, I’m pretty sure it’s wrong. There were some parts at the beginning that I never did quite manage to pound into shape before my doctor stopped the dex and I lost interest. There are also one or two things later on that might be right, but might also be wrong, and I never quite figured them out. I don’t mind getting beat up for being wrong, but I’m not really willing to publish stuff that I already know is probably wrong.

On the bright side, in a couple of weeks I’ll be taking the evil dex once a week, which means I’ll have one night a week that I’m wide awake and twiddling my thumbs looking for something to do. So maybe I’ll take another look and see if I have some new ideas for how to fix it up. If I do, you’ll be the first to know.

¹This is especially true among relativity mavens, who all seem to have an almost religious view of the “proper” interpretation of the math.

### WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about \$45,000 short of our \$300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of \$350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

### WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about \$45,000 short of our \$300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of \$350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.