In the meanwhile it will be clear to the reader, that the approach of time, as described in the previous paragraph, is incompatible with the paradigm of (classical) western physics.

In Newtonian physics, time is absolute and cannot change in relation to the speed of a body in space. If you change time, speed will change just as well: speed = distance divided by time. Nevertheless in Western physics, time became relative through Einstein, who had similar ideas as the eastern Sphere Observer.

In Western physics, however, this does not imply that the speed of a body in space and time are inversely proportional, as depicted in the graph, but that the course of time for a body changes only with respect to another moving body and as perceived by that other body. The course of time to the observer himself remains constant in Western physics.
In particular for western physicists, the previous paragraph is probably hard to digest, because the course of time does change for the (Sphere) Observer himself - his own time being inversely proportional to his speed in space - while Einstein was trying to make this relative.
 

In order to interpret the disagreement between West and East in a simple way, we have to go back to Introduction> Chinese Natural Theory. In section 3 The basic rhythms of the universe the concepts of earlier world and later world were introduced. Newton mechanics typically is a theory of what East calls the "later world" with a related paradigm. It now seems that Einstein accidentally has discovered the existence of the "earlier world". Because of the lack of a covering theory, prevailing Newton mechanics had to be adapted, and Einstein, as it were, had to make concessions to the paradigm of the later world.

I therefore think that 'relativising one’s own course of time' has been Einstein's concession to Newton Mechanics. This thought, of course, needs to be substantiated, which actually means that I have to prove that the discovery by the Sphere Observer - velocities in space and time being inversely proportional, as shown in the graph - corresponds to Einstein's discovery. That seems impossible, however; after all, Einstein presumably has not discovered anything. His (Special) theory of relativity, postulated in 1905, is based solely on thought experiments showing that space and time should be interpreted as relative. To find out whether there is not some discovery involved, I will commence with a little history of physics, about Einstein in the period between 1901 and 1905. In this period, some remarkable things occured that may be clues.

According to history, Einstein was a lazy student who was more concerned with playing physical puzzles than with studying mathematics. After graduating in 1901, therefore, a simple office job was all he could get. So Einstein was actually a completely uninteresting physicist with an uninteresting job, spending his spare time  tutoring schoolchildren. Nevertheless in 1905, from this 'nothingness', he did manage to get three articles published in the 'Annalen der Physik', the most renowned journal of physics at the time. This was unprecedented among physicists, and from a scientific point of view it was certainly not logical, especially in the case of the second article, which deals with the relativity of time and space. Why?

1. what Einstein described as the principle of relativity is based on thought experiments that could only be proven later.
2. Einstein's thought experiments had already been described mathematically by the Leiden professor and Nobel laureate Hendrik Antoon Lorentz. Remarkable is that Lorentz never protested against this plagiarism.* (I will get back to this later.)
3. the originals of his famous theory no longer exist which is weird as well.*

From the start, Einstein had a tendency to give no clues at all about the sources of his ideas.* This, in fact, is a mortal sin in science, but Einstein apparently managed to get away it. Moreover, his idea of "time being relative" is so patently contrary to human intuition, that it seems very unlikely that it would come to a person's mind out of the blue . Nevertheless, Einstein's thought experiments were accepted by Western physicists without a struggle, attributing them to his unparalleled imagination.

All those strange, non-scientific events indicate that something hasn't been right for Western science in 1905. Most important to me is the question of how Einstein could come to the unimaginable idea of time being relative. This idea is so contrary to prevailing Newtonian mechanics, that I cannot imagine how this could have been accepted on the sole basis of unproven thought experiments. Because I was searching for a possible discovery by Einstein, I had to give my own interpretation of the facts: I had to approach the problem heuristically. (A term Einstein liked to use in these kinds of situations.)

The fact is, I believe Einstein discovered the relativity of time while puzzling about the nature of gravity and its origin.

Continue to: 5.2. Gravity