You're probably right. The fact is I remember more of the conclusions than the mathematical details of getting there. I was once very conversant with vector calculus ( inner & outer product, dell, and all that and the representation of the laws of physics in them, and in tensor format as well. Now I struggle to keep up.
I have a close friend who has been, for a long time, pursuing a revised structure for general relativity based on his view that the Lorentz transformation, based, as it is, on (1-v exp2/c exp2) exp-1 formulation, wrongfully excludes velocities greater than c ( the velocity of light). Removing this restriction does indeed resolve some of the mathematical and conceptual issues still plaguing general relativity theory. His has been an up hill struggle , likely because very few have the energy or will to go back to basic issues they have long since stopped thinking about, and the professional risks they face when looking under a rock they (and their peers) have long ignored. He had me and another friend undertake the chore of proofing his math: it turned out to be a daunting chore that forced me to wade through stuff I once knew but the details of which I had long since forgotten . He's now close to getting his work published in a Physics Journal.
By the way I'm currently reading a very insightful work by a dedicated geologist, Marcia Bjornerud, entitled "Timefulness". It's a fascinating journey through the geological perspective of science & physics starting with James Hutton's 1789 then revolutionary speculations on the age of the planet.