Re: GR1916, available online.

Dear Alen:

"Alen" <alen1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:07c3da52-f699-4863-82bd-da4d56466f85@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
....
Nature may not 'care' what I, personally, am able to
visualise, but that does not mean that non-visualisable
theories should be acceptable. I adopt the view that,
if a theory specifies what is counterintuitive and
cannot be visualised by a mind, it should be regarded
as being either wrong or incomplete. The alternative
is, in essence, the death of science and knowledge.

GR is a classical theory. It tools have been used to analyze
floods, and EM fields too. There are loads of people that don't
have problems visualizing GR.

So your remarks are *entirely* about your inability to do so, so
far. Be honest, at least with yourself.

David A. Smith


.