So you refuse to take the hint. Instead more fool commentary. And you therefore would accuse Feynman of the same? Or choose to ignore that #1 uses Feynman's - yes - shock horror - bead argument as an entirely appropriate starting point. And contrast. As for the maths, of course when it comes time for a suitably prettied-up publication-ready article, there will be the appropriate equations some can't think without. Those with a competent feel for the purported character of GR's GW's simply require no maths to appreciate my geometric argument. Which assumes the reader has such a basic grasp. And so ironic that you, a complete maths illiterate, should be emphasizing that which you have no hope of understanding or using. PLEASE DO! PLEASE!