That diagram does not speak of simultaneity, and Poincare never said that time was not intuitive....How obtuse can you be?
We have not a direct intuition of the equality of two intervals of time. The persons who believe they possess this intuition are dupes of an illusion
Some people just can't understand some stuff. That stuff is beyond you, period.
That diagram does not speak of simultaneity
A particular Minkowski diagram illustrates the result of a Lorentz transformation. The horizontal corresponds to the usual notion of simultaneous events, for a stationary observer at the origin. The Lorentz transformation relates two inertial frames of reference, where an observer makes a change of velocity at the event (0, 0). The new time axis of the observer forms an angle α with the previous time axis, with α < π/4. After the Lorentz transformation the new simultaneous events lie on a line inclined by α to the previous line of simultaneity
And some people don't have any clue about what the significance of what is said
They are the envelop lines, the limits of the past and future of an event.
And if you fail to see the significance in puffs of smoke, hieroglyphic etymology or the number of letters in a book, they will treat you as the worse idiot ever, because you failed to see the magic meaning that they magically "see" springing everywhere.
Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that, Ollie. Best tell it to Poincare and the many other brilliant scientists and philosophers of science who didn't get sucked in by SR, then and now, eh? Surely you would convince them that they are just "conspiracy theorists," ya know?
Among modern scientists, pray tell who denies relativity?
The better question might be this: On what conceivable grounds can the scientists who "believe in" SR, but reject LR, justify their allegiance? Certainly not on any empirical grounds.
The absence of aether is one ground
How many times have you been shown that the existence of an "ether" is completely irrelevant to LR?
That theory was abandoned because there was no evidence of an aether whatsoever
In his later years (post GR) Al was back to saying there MUST be some kind of aether. He said his "rejection' of it had been mistaken and premature.
The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference, which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile aether, leads to the complete Lorentz transformation (see the Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory as an example)
"Whether the ether exists or not matters little – let us leave that to the metaphysicians; what is essential for us is, that everything happens as if it existed, and that this hypothesis is found to be suitable for the explanation of phenomena. After all, have we any other reason for believing in the existence of material objects? That, too, is only a convenient hypothesis; only, it will never cease to be so, while some day, no doubt, the ether will be thrown aside as useless."
Evidence for that???
You want to re-invent the L.E.T.,
What is now often called Lorentz ether theory (LET) has its roots in Hendrik Lorentz's "theory of electrons", which was the final point in the development of the classical aether theories at the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century.
Dingle was an old fool...
If you had ever read it, you might recall that Einstein, in his original 1905 paper, said that a clock at the north pole would run faster than a clock on the equator. Why? Because the clock on the equator is moving in a circle at a constant rate, whereas the other is not. It is, after all, the (faster) moving clock that runs slow.
It is also worth noting that Einstein here posits an absolute difference between the clocks, and presumes to know WHICH one is ACTUALLY MOVING (relative to the other).
These days, the relativists like to pretend that such things are "unknowable." Go figure, eh?