>>16849729
because only one of them is actually accelerating

>>16849808
Observers can’t distinguish if you are travelling .45c backwards with an object travelling .45c away from you vs an object travelling at .9c away from you

Lately I've been thinking about teaching a bit about discrete Fourier transforms to 11th-grade high school students as a way to show the uses of complex numbers. I see this thread and am reminded of the consequences of teaching special relativity badly to high school students. I have to wonder if there are any entertaining ways to misunderstand Fourier transforms. That said, it's probably still worthwhile to teach people a bit about cool stuff before they're ready for it even if it results in temporary confusion.

To the original question, one path in spacetime is bent and the other is straight; of course they have different proper times. Go read about how to understand relativity in terms of 4-vectors and special relativity will make 10 times more sense. Try this book: https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/

>>16849816
>one path in spacetime is bent and the other is straight; of course they have different proper times
It is impossible to tell if you’re on the straight or bent path though according to Einstein thoughly

>>16849808
fpbp
>>16849815
>some random niggers can’t tell whose accelerating so nobody else can’t
fuck off nigger

>>16849949
>some random nigger
Einstein is way smarter than you

>>16849808
The one left one the planet is under constant gravitational acceleration from both the planet they are on and the star it orbits.
Sometimes we need to account for the Moon and Jupiter too.
The rocket dude ain't got to deal with any of that shit so his clock is chill af. Take-off and landing only. Cruise control to the stars.

>>16849816
>I have to wonder if there are any entertaining ways to misunderstand Fourier transforms.
You could tell them that Fouier transforms are like really fucking important and that if they don't understand this shit backwards and fowards they will probably die from suffocation or some shit. Really talk it up.
Then never mention it again.
That would be fucking hysterical.
>>16849941
>thoughly
I am stealing this. Thank you.

Another thing that's annoying about the way special relativity is taught in high school (also in some university classes) is this insistence on presenting the material as it was developed historically. Well, at least at one particular stage of history, namely 1905 when Einstein wrote his famous paper.

There's a reason that that paper is so celebrated despite it not being the first paper to set out the Lorentz transform (as you can guess from the name), and despite it not being the best way understanding the Lorentz transform -- that would be Minkowski spacetime. It's a genuinely well-written paper. You should read it if you haven't. All the presentations of special relativity given in high school classes are inferior imitations of that one paper.

But there's no reason high school classes should be stuck in 1905. Really they should jump straight to the spacetime view instead of LARPing as Einstein. The way people teach about complex numbers feels the same way, stuck in the past (even more distant in this case) without the geometric insight we now have. And again, if high school teachers included the actual history of solving cubic equations instead of just demanding out of nowhere that all quadratic equations must have solutions, it would be more interesting.

On the other hand, there are cases where trying to "modernize" the curriculum makes it worse. As a rule of thumb, the closer a high school geometry textbook is to a rehashing of parts of Euclid's Elements, the better it is. But that may be because if you're not planning to LARP as Euclid and use that as an excuse to introduce rigorous proof, there's damn little reason to spend a whole year on synthetic geometry in the first place.

>>16850017
Historical context is important, understanding how ideas have evolved over time gets people genuinely interested in math instead of throwing formulas at them like chinks in their 12h cram school.

>>16849729
Acceleration breaks symmetry.

Your inertial path (the path without proper acceleration) from A to B is always the path which maximizes proper time (these define geodesics in general relativity). For any pair of observers meeting at the same two points in spacetime, the observer who accelerates between A and B will always experience less proper time than the observer who is inertial from A to B.

>>16850053
As stated multiple times ITT that is wrong per Einstein.

>>16850063
>as stated multiple times ITT
it's not though

>>16850076
Einstein said that observers cannot detect acceleration and proved it. You’re using earth as an arbitrary frame of reference. What is this intertial reference point you keep alluding to? The center of the universe? Ok pal

>>16849729
The one who turns around and comes back home is the one who doesn't. That acceleration phase is what makes the difference.

>>16850082
>Einstein said that observers cannot detect acceleration and proved it.
No, Einstein said that observers cannot detect motion of their own reference frame. They can absolutely detect whether their frame is accelerating because it affects experimental observations within their frame. An observer cannot distinguish between acceleration and gravitation.

You're getting like three or four different concepts muddled together.

>>16850082
>observers cannot detect acceleration
That means they can't detect deceleration, either, so go bang your head against a wall. You won't feel a thing.

>>16849957
>some random kike*
fixed

>>16849815
observers are dumb as fuck lmao

u dont need acceleration for this effect. just 3 clocks spread over 2 space ships and 1 earth. synchronize earth clock with the space ship 1 clock while it passes earth and flies towards space ship 2. when both ships pass each other transfer the time from ss1 clock to ss2 clock. when ss2 passes earth compare earth clock time with ss2 clock time. earth clock wins.

>>16851993
>transfer the time from ss1 clock to ss2 clock
How?

If light is so fast how do we see it

?

>>16849808
>because only one of them is actually accelerating
Show me where to find in the math.