my intuition still cant understand how
he could understand any paper he read,
involving tensors and partial differential
equations, while he couldent understand
any tensors and partial differential equations

lets assume for now that he read many
papers prior his own paper

how could he possibly undestand those
papers, when he dident understod any
math symbols whatsoever

On Feb 18, 5:14*pm, torque wrote:
my intuition still cant understand how
he could understand any paper he read,
involving tensors and partial differential
equations, while he couldent understand
any tensors and partial differential equations

lets assume for now that he read many
papers prior his own paper

how could he possibly undestand those
papers, when he dident understod any
math symbols whatsoever

xxein: You're missing the point. He 'did' get almost everyone to
believe him.

A few of us almost drank the kool-aid, but didn't.

So? Have you devised a physic to bring them back to their senses or
are you going to keep yelling to those that cannot hear?

On Feb 21, 2:24 am, xxein wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:14 pm, torque wrote:

my intuition still cant understand how
he could understand any paper he read,
involving tensors and partial differential
equations, while he couldent understand
any tensors and partial differential equations

lets assume for now that he read many
papers prior his own paper

how could he possibly undestand those
papers, when he dident understod any
math symbols whatsoever

xxein: You're missing the point. He 'did' get almost everyone to
believe him.

A few of us almost drank the kool-aid, but didn't.

So? Have you devised a physic to bring them back to their senses or
are you going to keep yelling to those that cannot hear?

im not sure what ta do

what do you suggest

On Feb 21, 2:43*pm, dove wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:24 wrote:





On Feb 18, 5:14 pm, torque wrote:

my intuition still cant understand how
he could understand any paper he read,
involving tensors and partial differential
equations, while he couldent understand
any tensors and partial differential equations

lets assume for now that he read many
papers prior his own paper

how could he possibly undestand those
papers, when he dident understod any
math symbols whatsoever

xxein: *You're missing the point. *He 'did' get almost everyone to
believe him.

A few of us almost drank the kool-aid, but didn't.

So? *Have you devised a physic to bring them back to their senses or
are you going to keep yelling to those that cannot hear?

im not sure what ta do

what do you suggest- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: I'm afraid that you will have to do what I did in order to
satisfy yourself.

You sort of have to go back to square one, but where is that? For me,
I just started thinking of what is physically logical (not the
mathematics, because that is just a symbolism that can be bent to
belief) and I certainly did not use anyone else's logic as a stepping
stone in an unknown direction. Well, maybe a little. But decide that
for yourself when you commit yourself to purely logical thinking.

When I put myself to it, I had what would seem as a great handicap.
It was both a personal embarrassment and a victory. In studying SRT,
I extracted a physical logic that seemed to say that SRT went beyond
the physical logic. I later found that the physical logic I extracted
was the Lorentzian. I had been ignorant of his name and work (the
embarrassment). I could say that I was smart enough about logic to
come back to Lorentz's same logic (backwards through SRT) to claim a
victory (of sorts).

All this took about 4 years of time. Most of it was used to find out
how SRT worked, what might be wrong with it and how I might prove
that. Not being very math savvy, it took a while to realise that math
was malleable to concept. It could 'prove' almost anything within any
concept. But the concept had to remain physically logical - and that
left me with only my Lorentz.

While getting my jollies about that, I got hit in the head with a
brick. Gravity. In a way, it was good that it happened that way. If
I has thought about gravity earlier, I just know that I couldn't have
found any physical logic at all. But it was still a brick to be
reckoned with.

It took about a year to resolve this. A surprisingly short time, but
it was luck. The best way I can explain it is that there was a
physical logic that I trusted and that gravity had to fit it without
grandiose changes. I just guessed until something seemed plausible
and then ran it through the tests. I failed miserably. Several times
over. I actually called it quits 3 or 4 times. I was going to give
Einstein his SRT, and GRT, but with reservation. I already knew he
was wrong with all this but I hit my end.

Then, one day and out of the blue, this ugly duck came up to me and
asked me if I could believe he could be a swan. "Of course not", I
replied. But I wondered why he came to me with this remark. So, I
asked him to show me how he could pass tests to make me believe this.

One by one, he passed all the tests I could give him. He was the swan
of gravity. Then came the internet. Surely he was outmoded there.
NOT! He is just as formidable in his form as anything presented about
his existence to date.

For you, it is probably safe to start with the logic of Lorentz (if
you understand its core). It has an ether of sorts attached. Don't
get rid of it. Get to understand the physical logic and make a list
of things that a gravity must comply with and start guessing.

Build your own math if you want (everyone else does). Just keep it
within the bounds of the physical logic. If you are not visited by
the ugly duck within a year or so, just let me know. I'll email him
to you so that you can test his swan-ness as I have.

So think. Find your basic physical logicalness. Work with it. Test
it until you are thoroughly convinced that there is nothing you
forgot. And only then attempt to put a gravity to it.

Good freeking luck.