@FlatterMann In physics education (also in math educatation, and probably some other subjects) there is a place for proving things (or providing evidence, at least) but also there is a place for explaining things, which includes providing illustrations, such as a spinning ice skater pulling in his arms. In my experience, there is probably too much proving and maybe not enough in the way of really good explaining.

After all, the student is rarely skeptical of what the teacher says, and in many cases does not even care whether is actually true, as long as the examiner is of the same opinion. Maybe the teacher should include some proof or evidence that the examiner agrees with him? Probably not, because the student rarely doubts that either. Maybe the student should be taught to doubt stuff generally? Yes. But providing proofs of stuff the student does not doubt is not the way to do that.

@m4r35n357 "The simulations are not "complete", whatever that means, but mimic the effects you would "see" as the traveller (aberration should be accurate, colour ind intensity effects are qualitative), and the scene is full of clocks." and "You seem to be struggling with something that is not really there . . . but I can't tell what." These twos sentence of yours, that you addressed to me, are similar in an interesting way. Know thyself.