|
Steven said "Throwing up a few superficial definitions of GR which at the very best are slightly better than chapter headings doesn't convey what GR is."
Yes I agree but I felt the attempt worthwhile to focus on GR..
AND we certainly agree that the math is the focal point..that was my point.
AND as you point out and I referred to above it is the math that is the subject not the physics..now you see that as a good thing and given your work could you think other wise... no worries there but I simply say it should not be this way...and that does not mean my view is valid..it is a view...
Sorry I could not convey the point I was trying to make as to the math such that you could not comprehend it but thanks for reading it... I do respect the science of math but I know in the wrong hands it can be manipulated to a degree to suit the outcome one is seeking.
AS a professional you will see that in the same bad light as would I.... and again I dont question the math and all I have said was to point to my belief that math is the tail wagging the dog..and you have agreed that is the way it is...
I did find out some stuff today that took me further with my understanding of GR so it has been well worth the time...
AND my point in posting the "headings" (as it were) was in an attempt to draw attention to the references to math and geometry and I suppose that within those definitions an apparent absence of detail as to how space may be bent etc... I did find something however mentioning "particle" interaction so I went away happy.
Thanks for taking the time and hope you have a great day.
alex
|