Re: GR1916, available online.

Dear Alen:

"Alen" <alen1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:afdbfe9f-406e-4d4c-9708-caa509d050ff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

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.

You are denying the capability of anyone else, ever, to visualize
GR. Who is being "arrogant in the extreme"?

I have never seen a comprehensive visualisation
of GR described - only the mathematics. The
heavy ball on a stretched rubber *** illustration
is utterly useless.

It gets one thinking, if for no other reason than to search for
more appropriate models.

And I shall not be interpreting this paragraph as an
expression of my 'dishonesty with myself'.

Only in religion is certain knowledge dispensed in toto, day one,
in some "comprehensive visualization". In science, we have to do
a lot of the work for ourselves.

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.

What if all we have is levels of self-delusion, and we depend on
one another (but ultimately Nature) to forge that "mental map"
into something that is useful. What if someone created this
"comprehensive visualisation"... one that met your expectations,
would you be able to see the problem differently, such that
advancement can be made? Or would you always see the situation
as that "movie" presented it?

It is *not important* that GR have a "Holy Bible". What is
important is that more minds attack the problem, seeing it from
different perspectives, different histories. You jaundice this
potential "talent pool" by having only one method, one benchmark,
one way of...how did you say it... "preventing the death of
science and knowledge".

If it is necessary for you to have such a crutch, please feel
free to make one. Frankly, I think efforts are better spent in
investigating the chasm between the quantum / discrete and the
classical / continuous. That is where advancement lies, and that
is where "comprehensive visualization" will likely ever entirely
fail.

David A. Smith


.