And then you end up with explanations like "Gravity is like a deformation of a rubber sheet". Completely misleading. In a similar case (not physics), I literally wasted years on trying to understand something correctly because I wriggled from analogy to analogy instead of putting effort into learning it correctly.
> I would use analogies with things they already understand, such as the hydraulic control lines of steam-powered machinery
How many people from the 18th century knew how those worked? You would be talking to an elite engineer. And even then you would first have to explain to them how you can represent numbers and numerical operations with those valves. I am pretty sure that if you take a today's elite engineer and take the time to explain him the basics correctly, he would be able to understand theoretical physics. That's what's happening in universities every day.
> If you argue this point, first explain to me why physics is done with Greek letters.
There are probably some historical reasons for that, but today it's just because you are quickly running out of latin letters in complex equations, at least that's my opinion :)
> And then you end up with explanations like "Gravity is like a deformation of a rubber sheet".
If you haven't read Eistein's "Relativity : the Special and General Theory", I strongly recommend you do.
It's a book aimed at laypeople, that requires only a basic (1st undergrad semester) understanding of calculus and vectors (not vector calculus, not linear algebra, just vectors). Yet, it's precise and correct, sacrificing conciseness to get easiness to understand - like every teaching book should.
So, no. It's perfectly possible to explain it without the bad analogies.
Special relativity is well-known for having the least prerequisites of any modern physics subject. Yes, you can explain it with just calculus and vectors. That's precisely what we already do in university courses.
But the complaint that started this whole thread is "why can't physicists explain why it's hard to add in extra neutrinos to the Standard Model?" Understanding the reason requires 2-3 semesters of relativistic quantum field theory, a subject which in turn requires relativity, quantum mechanics, and classical field theory.
Seriously, any resource that legitimately explains all of this, without bad analogies, and assuming no prerequisites, would end up precisely as hard to read (or likely harder) than the ~10,000 pages of textbook people currently study. The textbooks have already been optimized for ease of learning, there is no magic way to make a hard thing easy.
> I would use analogies with things they already understand, such as the hydraulic control lines of steam-powered machinery
How many people from the 18th century knew how those worked? You would be talking to an elite engineer. And even then you would first have to explain to them how you can represent numbers and numerical operations with those valves. I am pretty sure that if you take a today's elite engineer and take the time to explain him the basics correctly, he would be able to understand theoretical physics. That's what's happening in universities every day.
> If you argue this point, first explain to me why physics is done with Greek letters.
There are probably some historical reasons for that, but today it's just because you are quickly running out of latin letters in complex equations, at least that's my opinion :)