gmalivuk wrote:I never said "simpler", I said "better".
To me "better to simply Y" when responding to X, strongly implies Y is better than X because it's simpler; as X has been established as context for simplicity. You apparently didn't mean it that way, which is fine as I'm not Lord Policing dictator of the English language.
gmalivuk wrote:It is simple for anyone who has any business trying to say things about special relativity.
Which kind of entirely defeats the point. BMonk's statement was explain an aspect of special relativity, to those without a strong basis. Saying "includes a gamma term" may only be one relationship to you, but to anyone you might actually be explaining it to, "includes the term: 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" is seven relationships.
gmalivuk wrote:Though I also think it is simpler to use the actual equation instead of trying to work with some vague imprecise notion of "fast stuff gets heavier", which will never help you calculating any actual numbers. Furthermore, "fast stuff gets heavier" doesn't illustrate the fact that "fast stuff experiences time more slowly" and "fast stuff gets shorter" by the same factor, whereas realizing where gamma shows up in those equations does illustrate this.
Okay, so are you saying that it's simpler to apply
the actual equation, not that the actual equation contains less information or requires less background knowledge?
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.