I shan't venture to guess what you'll claim you were saying next.

Do you intend to use Einstein's choice of terms against me? If I had said space was a mullosc, you might be justified in mocking the idea. I did not.

As for understanding the terms, old Albert explained the Gaussian coordinate system earlier in the book. You might take a peek sometime.

That false accusation almost landed you with an official warning.

1.) The question was not asked in any previous post.

2.) This is the equivalent of asking me the colour of a cat after I just got done saying the cat was black.

Einstein maintained that the classical system had to be abandoned because folks were unable to measure time, speed, and distance to infinite precision. Twenty chapters later, the double-talker claimed that approximate measurements would do if one accepted his approximate universe.

He's the one complaining about the inability to measure the speed of light. I pointed out that in order to measure speed, one needs to measure both time and distance.

Now this could result from time being relative, as you suggest, or from time being inconsistent in some other way. If time cannot be measured, neither can speed. By definition speed is merely the distance something travels in a given amount of time. If this formula is too much for you, I don't think I can help. These are the simplest terms that come to mind. I don't intend to keep repeating myself, so you might move on to some other phase of your game.