The gentleman's name is Thierry, not Theirry. Bad enough to get it wrong in the article, but in the headline?

It matters not that others have misspelled his name. Is that our standard for quality? Fourth-graders pointing at each other saying "well that's how BEEB did it!"?

Oi.

I have to agree with all of that: If you are working in the field, studying in the field, then you absolutely must master the math to get ahead, to understand the details and find the exceptions, and to make contributions.

But that's not the question I took the OP to be asking. If the OP had asked "What maths must I learn to advance the state of the art in GR?" I would have agreed with others who posted a standard undergraduate-followed-by-graduate program of study (because you ain't advancin' anythin' with undergrad calc and algebra, unless you are a physics/math major and your undergrad includes advanced PDs, complex analysis, advanced stats, and advanced analytic geometry).

I took the question as "What do I need to understand to be able to get more out of the more advanced physics articles found here on /. and other interesting places?" - hence my agreement that you don't need math, Jack.

In fact, I would go so far as to assert that for most of us, trying to understand some of the more esoteric stuff outside our fields, math only gets in the way: A quantitative and precise understanding of most of today's hard science requires considerable specialized mathematics, and unless already has quite some specialized mathematics in one's own field, one will be unable to jump easily to and get anything out of the specialized mathematics of another field.

So this leaves the curious seeking high-quality, qualitative, non-mathematical articles and explanations.

(With the caveat that at some relatively simple math is a really good idea, since it can so encapsulate the physics. E=mc**2 is beautiful in its simplicity, beautiful in the equivalence it expresses.** As is the Lorentz transformation when applied to the relationship between t and c.)

(** Re the post commenting how muddy things get when you set c==1 in E=mc**2: I disagree completely. The physical point is that E=m; mathematically, E is proportional, of course, but the physics is that they are the same thing - that was radically new. That's the first beautiful point of the statement. The second, far more subtly beautifully point, is that the constant required to make the proportion an equality is the speed of light squared. OMG ponies! Why on earth should that be? Investigating that leads to some really interesting physics.

+1 on this and all related posts: Relativity is about physics, about beautiful physics, and is not about math.

There are bits of relativity for which Einstein had to go math-shopping: He knew what the physics must look like, he needed to know if the mathematicians had any tools that matched what he wanted to express (they did, Lorentz transformations being one of the most important).

Note: I have a physics degree, which means I have studied more math than anything else. The math is important to express the physics precisely, important to get useful answers to specific questions. But the physics come first. (There's the old trope of the physics prof saying "set C to 1 so you can see the physics happening.)

Read about and try to reproduce Einstein's thought experiments. Start with the one about travelling at the speed of light, and what you would see as you approached C (hint: if you travel at C, photons can only reach you from in front, from along your axis of travel). Think about the "falling in an elevator" experiment. These get you a long way to the principle of equivalence, the principle of relativity, etc.

Only once you have some idea of the physics should you attempt to tackle the math - and by that time, you'll be starting to get a good idea of what the math might look like.

Do not attempt to learn the math first and thereby get to the physics. There lies madness.

I totally get you, but a lot of people prefer it that way because they're simply freightened.

I'm not saying right or wrong here, but both sides have sound reasons.

I have one word for you: Babbage.

RARE Collectible IDF SHOT MacBook Pro *** Limited Edition *** (Reserve Not Met)

It's reliable enough and credible enough for the average netizen. Sure, you won't get browny points citing it in academia, but when I want to know something about something, I check Wikipedia first.

It's just an FAQ, not the license. If the wording of the accepted license doesn't distinguish, it doesn't matter. Since it's in the FAQ, it's clearly... well... unclear.

The Nexus one is most likely the ADP 3

Yes and no.

Google have openly said they are planning to sell this thing to consumers. There will likely be a developer version with a pre-rooted ADP rom on the device but this version will be sold through their existing channels. Google intends for the Nexus One to be the ultimate Google Experience(TM) phone.

No, I am not assuming anything about the neighbor. I specifically left it up to the society has to work out the details.

I am not being an advocate here. I was merely stating that taking from your neighbor isn't stealing if that is the societal norm and your neighbor is also doign it. If the contributors don't actively participate then it is no different from someone not paying taxes in a capitalist society. Eventually they will lose their property and their place in that society.