He does the same in "The Elegant Universe", using the metaphor of a car driving at a fixed speed (c) across field that is space in one direction and time in another. That was my big "aha" moment with special relativity: understanding that "space" and "time" are dimensions in essentially the same way that "length" and "width" are dimensions -- with the caveat that we always have this tremendous velocity (c) across one or the other.
Then you contemplate the kinetic energy that must be associated with c, and e=Mc^2 pops right out at you. Absolutely blew my mind when I first grokked that intuitively.
In the end, Greene failed to convince me that string theory was particularly interesting, but his descriptions of relativity are absolutely first-rate.
These are actually sometime the worst things to read if you actually want to understand stuff. The publishers of these kind of popular science books enforce the rule for authors that no equations should ever appear. If authors get really upset with that they allow printing one equation, usually, E=Mc^2. This leads even talented authors to water down everything with faulty and many time absurd metaphors. There is no real substitute to reading real physics books. On a lighter side, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5VVEw4ZSRI
Well, having an intuitive understanding goes a long way too. Being able to derive formulae rather than just having them memorized is good. Of course, I don't want a book that doesn't include the formulae, but I want to know the "why" of it as well.
Then you contemplate the kinetic energy that must be associated with c, and e=Mc^2 pops right out at you. Absolutely blew my mind when I first grokked that intuitively.
In the end, Greene failed to convince me that string theory was particularly interesting, but his descriptions of relativity are absolutely first-rate.