Re: GR1916, available online.

On Dec 14, 12:21 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Alen:

"Alen" <al...@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

I think that referring to your opinion as my honesty
with myself has to be arrogant in the extreme. I am
capable of disagreeing with you, you know.

I have never seen a comprehensive visualisation of GR
described - only the mathematics. The heavy ball on a
stretched rubber *** illustration is utterly useless.
And I shall not be interpreting this paragraph as an
expression of my 'dishonesty with myself'.

Perhaps those who lack any visualisation problems
attach little significance to visualisation, compared to the
mathematics itself, and don't see a really comprehensive
visualisation as important?

I see it as vital, if delusion is to be avoided.

Alen
.