How do you communicate scientific information to the layman? Or do you want to keep it to yourself?
Basic principles of any science can be easily communicated to the layman. The basic information for the theory of relativity is given to students every day, but the specifics require a lot more study (meaning you must have a prerequisite knwoledge...the pre-reqs at university are not just a nuisance. They actually mean something).
The problems come into play when 1) the layman refuses to use the scientific terminology that scientists use even after having it defined for them, 2) the layman does not have the prerequisite knowledge necessary to understand the more complicated terms (and in your case mathematical symbols) and 3) the layman attempts to debate the people who
do understand the terms and equations and who
do have the prerequisite knowledge and then try to "stump" them by arguing a mischaracterization (aka strawman), all the while pretending that the non-laymen have the misconceptions because they cannot respond to the mischaracterization to their liking.
If you storm around demanding evidence, but you have no way of understanding the evidence then that is no one else's fault but your own. Some concepts can be easily laid out (like the topic under discussion), but the evidence is not as easily understood (even though Modulous provided definitions for each of the symbols he used) if you don't even have a basic education in the sciences and maths involved. And I mean basic...division symbols and squares are pretty basic. 3rd and 6th grade respectively (if that).
I am a layman (meaning non-degreed in the sciences/maths) but I have no problem understanding the evidence in this thread. But, then again, I also don't pretend to know more than I do and then have to backtrack just to keep up. That may be where your problem lies. Thinking you know more than you do (how else can you say that other people have a misconception of something you do not understand yourself?) and then blaming it on the presentation of the evidence to save face.
Again, there are easy ways to explain many things, but without even a basic understanding of science or math you are not going to understand the evidence for which you ask. Some people here can try to make it easy to understand, but many erroneous ideas stem from simplification because much is lost in the "translation."
Some things said here are way over many heads (and you will see biologists here readily admit to a mediocre or non-existent understanding of physics and vice versa), but, if you really want to understand, the knowledge is out there. Find it. Use it. Don't underestimate yourself
"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -
The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
™ Version 4.2