Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Justatruthseeker]

Once again you demonstrate a Flat Earth belief system.

Tell me, what is everything in motion relative to?

Everything..... unless things are moving together.

So why do you find the question difficult to answer?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Until you learn to address the post....

Your point was addressed. You did not understand the answer. You run away from offers to discuss the basics. That means that if anyone is a troll here that would be you. Let's avoid name calling. Why are you so afraid to learn the basics? Can you at least tell me that?

If you actually do understand the basics I will even apologize. But your questions tell us that you do not so an apology will almost certainly not be in order.

 

[Polymath257]

So you can't answer the question here on earth?

We are at rest in the local inertial frame. Always.

Sure they do. Either our devices are correct and we are stationary, or you understand we are not stationary regardless of what our devices say.....

No, that statement depends on the frame of reference.

It's quite simple. Either you believe we are in motion or you believe we are not in motion. How hard is that? It's not the question you can't answer, It's you don't like the answer you have to give....

No, I don't believe the question of whether we are in motion has a definite answer. If you pick the reference frame, then there is an answer. Not before.

The whole point of Special Relativity is based on the principle of special relativity, which states that all observers moving at constant velocities with respect to each other should find the same laws of nature operating in their frames of reference.

That's the point of SR.....

Exactly. Every reference frame is equally good for explaining and understanding what is going on. part of that is the every reference frame is stationary in itself.

Hence time dilation from acceleration since the observers are NOT moving at constant velocities with respect to each other.....

Which observers?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everything.....

So why do you find the question difficult to answer?

Not an appropriate answer.

And the question is difficult for you since you cannot answer it.

Try again.

 

[Polymath257]

Everything..... unless things are moving together.

So why do you find the question difficult to answer?

Have you read my treatment of the two twins from the outgoing frame of twin B? Did you notice that I never used the frame of twin A as a reference?

Well, the one good things about this series of posts is that some of us now understand the pitfalls of special relativity a bit better by your example. You really need to go take a class or have some sort of guide in this material. You have some very deep misunderstandings of what SR actually says and how it is used.

I can say this because I have done a number of graduate classes in physics where SR was a key ingredient of the course. I understand the math and why the math works the way it does. And I know that if you actually took a class and presented the views you have been that you would fail the class. Either that, or you would realize your mistakes and actually learn something.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We are at rest in the local inertial frame. Always.

"No, I believe that the terms 'stationary' and 'in motion' only make sense once you have selected an inertial frame from which to answer the questions" your previous response....

And no you are not. You are spinning arpound the surface of the earth at 1,000 mph. Along with your "inertial" frame..... You just can't tell you are in motion. There is a difference from being able to tell if you are at rest and actually being at rest.....

No, that statement depends on the frame of reference.

Avoidance doesn't suit you because you don't like the answer.

"We are at rest in the local inertial frame. Always."

Seems you understand which reference just fine. But thinking you are at rest and actually being at rest are two different things.....

No, I don't believe the question of whether we are in motion has a definite answer. If you pick the reference frame, then there is an answer. Not before.

What reference frame would we be discussing talking about the earth spinning, orbiting the sun, etc, etc..... Pluto???/

Avoidance does you no service, just makes people realize you are avoiding.....

Exactly. Every reference frame is equally good for explaining and understanding what is going on. part of that is the every reference frame is stationary in itself.

No, it just simplifies the math.

I could say car A and B which are both traveling at 50 mph and headed for a collision in that A is stationary and B is traveling at 100 mph and get the correct answer to the resultant energy release..... But that wouldn't change the reality that both are traveling at 50 mph.....

Hence you understand Twin B's clocks are slowing, and that he can not see it....

No one is arguing twin B's devices say he is stationary. No one is arguing that twin B can't tell his clocks slowed......

But even Twin B knows this is not correct as he flips the switch to start his rocket engines...... Let alone has to perform a turn around maneuver..... You might believe twin B believes he is stationary, but he really doesn't unless he is an idiot....

 

[Polymath257]

"No, I believe that the terms 'stationary' and 'in motion' only make sense once you have selected an inertial frame from which to answer the questions" your previous response....

And no you are not. You are spinning arpound the surface of the earth at 1,000 mph. Along with your "inertial" frame..... You just can't tell you are in motion. There is a difference from being able to tell if you are at rest and actually being at rest.....

OK, the spinning introduces an acceleration, which means it is not an inertial frame. That much I can agree with. So, we are accelerating.

Avoidance doesn't suit you because you don't like the answer.

"We are at rest in the local inertial frame. Always."

Seems you understand which reference just fine. But thinking you are at rest and actually being at rest are two different things.....



What reference frame would we be discussing talking about the earth spinning, orbiting the sun, etc, etc..... Pluto???/

Well, the most common one is the one where the sun is stationary, which is a very good approximation to an inertial frame.

No, it just simplifies the math.

I could say car A and B which are both traveling at 50 mph and headed for a collision in that A is stationary and B is traveling at 100 mph and get the correct answer to the resultant energy release..... But that wouldn't change the reality that both are traveling at 50 mph.....

With respect to the Earth?

Hence you understand Twin B's clocks are slowing, and that he can not see it....

No one is arguing twin B's devices say he is stationary. No one is arguing that twin B can't tell his clocks slowed......

But even Twin B knows this is not correct as he flips the switch to start his rocket engines...... Let alone has to perform a turn around maneuver..... You might believe twin B believes he is stationary, but he really doesn't unless he is an idiot....

he is stationary in the outgoing frame until he switches on the rockets to move to a different inertial frame. Twin A never has to turn on rockets, so never experiences an acceleration, and so remains in the same frame throughout.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

OK, the spinning introduces an acceleration, which means it is not an inertial frame. That much I can agree with. So, we are accelerating.

The orbit does too, which is why all orbits are described as accelerations....

So your devices can not be trusted to give you an accurate perception of reality since they tell you you are stationary..... Nor can your clocks be trusted since acceleration causes clocks to slow. granted it is a tiny amount, but you CAN"T TELL. Day by day, year by year you continue to call different duration ticks of time seconds, thinking nothing has changed. And this isn't even from the effect of being accelerated at fractions of c from expansion... You can't see that effect on your clocks either.....

Well, the most common one is the one where the sun is stationary, which is a very good approximation to an inertial frame.

Except it's orbiting the galaxy at 67,000 mph so isn't inertial either.....

With respect to the Earth?

No on earth you got speedometers that actually tell you your velocity with respect to the ground, so you can tell each is going 50 mph. But in space your speedometer reads zero. So you must apply all the motion to the other frame, even if almost all the motion was your frame.....
This is why the twin thinks he is stationary and that his clocks do not slow. He can't discern his true motion and clock changes. What he says about other frames can not be trusted as he must apply all the velocity to the other frame...... Even when in a thought experiment the other frame is stationary..... That is why he can not perceive the correct flow of time in the other twins frame. He can not even perceive the changes in his own correctly.....

he is stationary in the outgoing frame until he switches on the rockets to move to a different inertial frame. Twin A never has to turn on rockets, so never experiences an acceleration, and so remains in the same frame throughout.

No he isn't. He fired his rockets and accelerated. He is merely coasting at whatever velocity he was when he shut off his engines.... He only THINKS he is stationary..... His clock remains ticking at the slower rate it reached when he shut off his engines.... Until then it continuously slowed..... Twin A never experiences an acceleration and so his clocks never change. Twin B just can not perceive this fact.... He is simply unable to perceive his own clock changes, nor to perceive the other clock doesn't change. It has nothing to do with switching frames. The error will persist while he is coasting, while he is firing his engines and continue until he returns and compares his clock and finds it was only his clock that was affected.....

Or at least we then hope the twin finally admitted to his mistake....

 

[Polymath257]

No he isn't. He fired his rockets and accelerated.

Yes. That is when he changed frames from the outgoing one to the returning one. Twin A never had to fire any rockets and never accelerated.

He is merely coasting at whatever velocity he was when he shut off his engines.... He only THINKS he is stationary..... His clock remains ticking at the slower rate it reached when he shut off his engines.... Until then it continuously slowed..... Twin A never experiences an acceleration and so his clocks never change. Twin B just can not perceive this fact.... He is simply unable to perceive his own clock changes, nor to perceive the other clock doesn't change. It has nothing to do with switching frames. The error will persist while he is coasting, while he is firing his engines and continue until he returns and compares his clock and finds it was only his clock that was affected.....

If twin B correctly applies LT to go from the frame before the acceleration to the frame after the acceleration, his observations will match reality. I have shown you the calculations using several different techniques by now.

To do things correctly you have to either do all calculations in the same inertial frame (there are three possibilities in this little story---twin A's frame, twin B's outgoing, and twin B's return) OR you have to shift frames at some point using an LT.

I have shown how to do the calculation for both twins from the frame of the outgoing twin. You have to look at how the return twin B is seen in the outgoing frame (which twin B leaves when he accelerates), but if you do that, you get correct ages for both twins when they re-unite. In the outgoing frame, the first half o twin B's trip takes 8 years and twin A ages 6.4 years during that time (time dilation). In that same outgoing frame the return trip takes 17 years. Twin A ages an additional 13.6 years, for a total age of 20 years and twin B (who is now in a different frame) ages 8 more years for a total of 16 years.

Alternatively, you can do an LT from the outgoing frame to the return frame, determine where/when twin A is in both frames and find out how much aging happens that way. Again, you get 20 years for twin A and 16 years for twin B.

What you *cannot* do is think of twin B as being in only one frame the whole time. Why not? Because twin B turns on his rockets and feels an acceleration, which means he changed frames. That needs to be taken into account.

 

[Polymath257]

The orbit does too, which is why all orbits are described as accelerations....

So your devices can not be trusted to give you an accurate perception of reality since they tell you you are stationary..... Nor can your clocks be trusted since acceleration causes clocks to slow. granted it is a tiny amount, but you CAN"T TELL. Day by day, year by year you continue to call different duration ticks of time seconds, thinking nothing has changed. And this isn't even from the effect of being accelerated at fractions of c from expansion... You can't see that effect on your clocks either.....

OK, how much does that affect things? What is the amount of acceleration? How much does that affect things like age calculations? Want to do the calculations?

In other words, exactly how far away from an inertial frame are we?

Except it's orbiting the galaxy at 67,000 mph so isn't inertial either.....

The speed doesn't affect whether it is an inertial frame. The acceleration does. Care to calculate the acceleration for our orbit around the galaxy?

No on earth you got speedometers that actually tell you your velocity with respect to the ground, so you can tell each is going 50 mph. But in space your speedometer reads zero. So you must apply all the motion to the other frame, even if almost all the motion was your frame.....
This is why the twin thinks he is stationary and that his clocks do not slow. He can't discern his true motion and clock changes. What he says about other frames can not be trusted as he must apply all the velocity to the other frame...... Even when in a thought experiment the other frame is stationary..... That is why he can not perceive the correct flow of time in the other twins frame. He can not even perceive the changes in his own correctly.....

There is no 'correct flow of time'. There is proper time (what someone actually experiences) and coordinate tie (what clocks measure). Clocks that are at rest in a frame will measure proper time for that frame.

And no, there is no need to 'apply all the velocity to the other frame'. It is quite possible, and in some cases easier, to pick a frame different than any of the 'natural ones' in the problem. For example, in the collision of two relativistic particles, it is often easier to do the calculation in the 'center of momentum' frame, where the momenta add to zero. Neither particle is in that frame, but the technical calculations are often easier in that one. After the calculations are done, you need to use an LT to get back to the individual frames.

Again, *any* inertial frame (one that doesn't accelerate) is equally good for doing *any* measurement or any calculation. There is no one frame that is picked out as special from which all others are measured as being in motion.

 

[ecco]

Either your perceptions and devices are correct and we are stationary, or they are wrong and we are in motion despite what our devices and perceptions tell us.

But that wouldn't change the reality that both are traveling at 50 mph

The (at least partial) reality is that we are moving around the center of the galaxy at 514,000 mph.
If instead of two cars, there were two flatbed tow trucks each carrying a car.

• Both trucks' speedometers would show 50 mph.
• Both cars' speedometers would show 0 mph.
• A police officer on the ground pointing his radar gun at one of the trucks would get a reading of 50 mph.
• A police officer in one of the cars on the flatbed trucks with just a simple radar gun would get a reading of 100 mph.

Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?

Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?

 

[Polymath257]

Except it's orbiting the galaxy at 67,000 mph so isn't inertial either.....

Want to compute how much that affects things?

Note that 67,000 mph is about 30 km/sec, which is .0001 of c. That gives a time dilation effect of .999999995. So, in measuring a billion years, we could be off by 5 years from this effect. I challenge you to find a measurement of that time period where the accuracy is claimed to be anything close to that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes. That is when he changed frames from the outgoing one to the returning one. Twin A never had to fire any rockets and never accelerated.

I thought you said B's view was equally valid. So Twin A did accelerate. That's what Twin B believes, he sees twin A's clocks slow.

Get off the lame frame switching PR. Frame switching is NOT the reason clocks slow. Clocks slow because changes in velocity add or subtract energy at the quantum level. This is why clocks on board airplanes slowed compared to earth clocks calculated ALL from the same Earth Centered Frame. Which nullified the pseudoscience of frame switching being the cause.... That old theory has already been falsified by actual experimental data. But then Einstein already told you it was acceleration that caused it, not frame switching...

If twin B correctly applies LT to go from the frame before the acceleration to the frame after the acceleration, his observations will match reality. I have shown you the calculations using several different techniques by now.

No they won't. he will still see twin A's clocks slow and his as never changing. He will continue to be incorrect on both counts.... It doesn't matter what calculations he applies because he can't even tell his own velocity or correct rate of clock ticks compared to A.

To do things correctly you have to either do all calculations in the same inertial frame (there are three possibilities in this little story---twin A's frame, twin B's outgoing, and twin B's return) OR you have to shift frames at some point using an LT.

Except neither Twin B's outgoing nor return frames are inertial. He is under acceleration....... Which is why you could only do them from frame A to arrive at the correct calculation.....

I have shown how to do the calculation for both twins from the frame of the outgoing twin. You have to look at how the return twin B is seen in the outgoing frame (which twin B leaves when he accelerates), but if you do that, you get correct ages for both twins when they re-unite. In the outgoing frame, the first half o twin B's trip takes 8 years and twin A ages 6.4 years during that time (time dilation). In that same outgoing frame the return trip takes 17 years. Twin A ages an additional 13.6 years, for a total age of 20 years and twin B (who is now in a different frame) ages 8 more years for a total of 16 years.

The outgoing twins frame is a non-inertial frame.... The return B is seen the same as the outgoing B by A. Clocks slower. Twin B on his outgoing leg sees the same thing on his return leg, Twin A's clocks slow. Only at two points is his frame inertial. At A and at the halfway point when he is stationary with respect to A.

Alternatively, you can do an LT from the outgoing frame to the return frame, determine where/when twin A is in both frames and find out how much aging happens that way. Again, you get 20 years for twin A and 16 years for twin B.

You can do anything you like. But in each and every case you will treat frame A as absolute.....

What you *cannot* do is think of twin B as being in only one frame the whole time. Why not? Because twin B turns on his rockets and feels an acceleration, which means he changed frames. That needs to be taken into account.

At 1G acceleration he would feel no more acceleration than you do now....., have you taken your non-inertial frame into account????

In fact you could accelerate at 9.8 meters per second per second in a closed room and never know you were accelerating right here on earth. At least until it hit the ground.... In fact you would think you were weightless and far from the affects of any acceleration....

Once again, get off the PR of frame switching. Experiments have already falsified that as being the cause of clocks slowing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Want to compute how much that affects things?

Note that 67,000 mph is about 30 km/sec, which is .0001 of c. That gives a time dilation effect of .999999995. So, in measuring a billion years, we could be off by 5 years from this effect. I challenge you to find a measurement of that time period where the accuracy is claimed to be anything close to that.

Now compute the effects of traveling at 99% of c with the expansion of space......

I noticed you left that part of my post out..... then we will talk about the exponential change needed for faster than c expansion which has only continued to increase....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The (at least partial) reality is that we are moving around the center of the galaxy at 514,000 mph.
If instead of two cars, there were two flatbed tow trucks each carrying a car.

• Both trucks' speedometers would show 50 mph.
• Both cars' speedometers would show 0 mph.
• A police officer on the ground pointing his radar gun at one of the trucks would get a reading of 50 mph.
• A police officer in one of the cars on the flatbed trucks with just a simple radar gun would get a reading of 100 mph.

Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?

Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?

Except it is the person who's speedometer that says he is traveling at zero, while moving at 50 mph, that is claimed to be able to perceive things correctly.....

I already know that the stationary person on the ground (twin A) can perceive things correctly (as regards things on earth or set in motion from his frame). As can both truck drivers who have a speedometer that actually works.... It's your burden to prove the person in the car who's speedometer reads zero can perceive things correctly. The other officer in the car with the radar gun also gets the wrong answer as neither truck is moving at 100 mph and since his speedometer reads as zero...... he will never get the correct answer either.

 

[Polymath257]

I thought you said B's view was equally valid. So Twin A did accelerate. That's what Twin B believes, he sees twin A's clocks slow.

Yes, B's view is equally valid. But B undergoes an acceleration, meaning there is a frame difference. Twin A does NOT have an acceleration, so stays in the same frame the whole time. Velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Get off the lame frame switching PR. Frame switching is NOT the reason clocks slow. Clocks slow because changes in velocity add or subtract energy at the quantum level. This is why clocks on board airplanes slowed compared to earth clocks calculated ALL from the same Earth Centered Frame. Which nullified the pseudoscience of frame switching being the cause.... That old theory has already been falsified by actual experimental data. But then Einstein already told you it was acceleration that caused it, not frame switching...

I did NOT say that changing frames was the reason for the time dilation. If that's what you got from what I wrote, read it again. But, you have to either stay in the same frame for the whole calculation, OR do a LT to go from one frame to another.

No they won't. he will still see twin A's clocks slow and his as never changing. He will continue to be incorrect on both counts.... It doesn't matter what calculations he applies because he can't even tell his own velocity or correct rate of clock ticks compared to A.

At the midpoint of the story for B, there is an acceleration. Twin B will feel the effects of that acceleration as a force. Twin A feels no such force, so is not accelerated, so stays in the same frame the whole time. It really is that simple.

The proper time as experienced by either twin is an objective thing. And both twins can correctly determine the proper time elapsed for either twin. This can also be done in any other inertial frame you want.

Except neither Twin B's outgoing nor return frames are inertial. He is under acceleration....... Which is why you could only do them from frame A to arrive at the correct calculation.....

Twin B only experiences an acceleration at the turn around and is moving at constant velocity otherwise.

The outgoing twins frame is a non-inertial frame.... The return B is seen the same as the outgoing B by A.

Simply false. The outgoing and the return motions are both uniform: they are constant velocities. That means they are both inertial frames. They have different velocities (different directions, same speed), and so different frames.

Clocks slower. Twin B on his outgoing leg sees the same thing on his return leg, Twin A's clocks slow. Only at two points is his frame inertial. At A and at the halfway point when he is stationary with respect to A.

OK, you clearly don't know what it means to be in an inertial frame. ALL that is required is that it be moving without acceleration.

You can do anything you like. But in each and every case you will treat frame A as absolute.....

At 1G acceleration he would feel no more acceleration than you do now....., have you taken your non-inertial frame into account????

Yes. But to do it correctly requires GR and not just SR.

In fact you could accelerate at 9.8 meters per second per second in a closed room and never know you were accelerating right here on earth. At least until it hit the ground.... In fact you would think you were weightless and far from the affects of any acceleration....

And yes, that would be a locally Lorentz frame. The frame 'at rest' on the surface of the Earth is NOT a Lorentz inertial frame, although it is a good approximation for many situations. But, again, that is a topic for GR, not for SR.

Once again, get off the PR of frame switching. Experiments have already falsified that as being the cause of clocks slowing.[/QUOTE]

I never said it was the cause of clocks slowing. I said the change of frame is required to be able to do certain versions of the calculations correctly.

I showed how to find the aging of both twins from the outgoing frame (which twin B is in for a while and that is the difference between the two that highlights that frames are changing for B but not for A.

 

[Polymath257]

Except it is the person who's speedometer that says he is traveling at zero, while moving at 50 mph, that is claimed to be able to perceive things correctly.....

Yes. All measurements done from that frame will correctly give any physically relevant result. At least, until acceleration effects from the curvature of the Earth become relevant.

I already know that the stationary person on the ground (twin A) can perceive things correctly (as regards things on earth or set in motion from his frame). As can both truck drivers who have a speedometer that actually works.... It's your burden to prove the person in the car who's speedometer reads zero can perceive things correctly. The other officer in the car with the radar gun also gets the wrong answer as neither truck is moving at 100 mph and since his speedometer reads as zero...... he will never get the correct answer either.

That is wrong. It is giving the *correct* relative velocities. Assuming all of the trucks are moving at constant speed and not turning, any experiment done in those cars will give correct results.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And BTW, when does the twin cut off his engines? When his speedometer says he's traveling at 1/2 of c?

 

[Polymath257]

And BTW, when does the twin cut off his engines? When his speedometer says he's traveling at 1/2 of c?

When he measures A coming toward him at 60% of c.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, B's view is equally valid. But B undergoes an acceleration, meaning there is a frame difference. Twin A does NOT have an acceleration, so stays in the same frame the whole time. Velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

So twin B can not perceive reality. Understood.

There is no velocity without first there being acceleration....

I did NOT say that changing frames was the reason for the time dilation. If that's what you got from what I wrote, read it again. But, you have to either stay in the same frame for the whole calculation, OR do a LT to go from one frame to another.

Except why would twin B do an LT for himself? He can't decipher his speed, his speedometer says zero. Every reference point he sees is moving away or towards him at different velocities, so can not decipher it from that. Twin A's clocks are slow, even when they never changed, so he can't use their clock. His clock hasn't changed, even when it has, so there is no need to adjust for time dilation, not that he would know how much has ocurred since he can't decipher his velocity......

At the midpoint of the story for B, there is an acceleration. Twin B will feel the effects of that acceleration as a force. Twin A feels no such force, so is not accelerated, so stays in the same frame the whole time. It really is that simple.

twin B will feel an acceleration as he fires his engines to actually slow down from his first acceleration. then another acceleration as he accelerates back home. then another as he accelerates to decelerate. To him there is no difference between accelerating by firing his engines as there is to decelerate by firing his engines. Both feel as accelerations....

The proper time as experienced by either twin is an objective thing. And both twins can correctly determine the proper time elapsed for either twin. This can also be done in any other inertial frame you want.

no twin B can not. He thinks twin A's clocks run slower.... Only by doing the calculations from Twin A's frame can you di this. Which is exactly why you did do that. You can't help yourself of thinking of it as an absolute frame....

Twin B only experiences an acceleration at the turn around and is moving at constant velocity otherwise.

Twin B experiences one at the start and one when he decelerates at the turn around. Then another as he decelerates to land on earth.....

Simply false. The outgoing and the return motions are both uniform: they are constant velocities. That means they are both inertial frames. They have different velocities (different directions, same speed), and so different frames.

Why would they have different velocities.Their speed (velocity is the same). Is he for some reason incapable of obtaining the same speed on his return half that he did on his outgoing half????? Direction is irrelevant..... Your contradictions are clear in that they can't have different velocities and yet have the same speed.

We will ignore the time needed for acceleration and deceleration.....

OK, you clearly don't know what it means to be in an inertial frame. ALL that is required is that it be moving without acceleration.

So we instantly accelerated to 60% of c????

Yes. But to do it correctly requires GR and not just SR.

GR is irrelevant except when the twin lands on earth and we consider the minuscule slowing of his clock due to gravity. At great speeds 60% of light and in the micro-gravity of space, it can be virtually ignored...

Special relativity - Wikipedia

"As of today, special relativity is the most accurate model of motion at any speed when gravitational effects are negligible."

"As Galilean relativity is now considered an approximation of special relativity that is valid for low speeds, special relativity is considered an approximation of general relativity that is valid for weak gravitational fields, i.e. at a sufficiently small scale (for tidal forces) and in conditions of free fall."

I do believe that the second his engines cut off he is in free fall..... Take the excuses elsewhere....

And yes, that would be a locally Lorentz frame. The frame 'at rest' on the surface of the Earth is NOT a Lorentz inertial frame, although it is a good approximation for many situations. But, again, that is a topic for GR, not for SR.

Agreed because the free fall is the result of gravity from curved spacetime... not a force as from acceleration....

I never said it was the cause of clocks slowing. I said the change of frame is required to be able to do certain versions of the calculations correctly.

We've already established he can't do the calculations from his frame as his speedometer reads as zero and he has no references to deduce his actual velocity. he doesn't even know whn to shut off his engines when he reaches 60% of c....

I showed how to find the aging of both twins from the outgoing frame (which twin B is in for a while and that is the difference between the two that highlights that frames are changing for B but not for A.

Yes, when you used A as the absolute frame.....