I LOVE when science is explained as if you're talking to child. Or even a high school'r with algebra under their belt. And then this happens... > “...you can’t

I LOVE when science is explained as if you're talking to child. Or even a high school'r with algebra under their belt. And then this happens... > “...you can’t put space (which is a measurement of distance) and time (which is a measurement of, well, time) on the same footing...” ...two parentheticals followed by dippy do metaphor 'footing?' Feet? I’m only half kidding. The article's first 50% starts in the best of ways, ‘shortest distance between two points’. After ‘feet’ it’s all down hill-- > “the faster you move through space, the slower you move through time.” Well. Of course. Every school child knows this is true. When the kickball is heading for your face, time stands still. But slow down a minute, walk me through this as carefully as you did for the two-points... > "But as you approach the speed of light" Never going to happen > "— or rather, ..where the relative speed between you and it is close to the speed of light — you’ll observe that it’s contracted along its direction of relative motion..." It relative that it and it's--WHat? There was distance between two points and now I have 'relative speed'. What the heck is that that I should be able to call it an it so quick?? I could go on, but my point--Why, once the subject becomes actually difficult to understand, does the author's explanation becomes worse? More parenthetical. It and that. And tries to put me in a position to imagine moving at the speed of light or a clock "defined by light bouncing back and forth between two mirrors". Huh. What? Great start. Poor finish. Maybe if you thought less about name dropping Einstein, I could appreciate what is relative speed between two anything. I agree, this curious piece of math and science could use some popular updating. /END RANT