Our clocks have been accelerating with it, in the same frame of reference. Therefore, you don't have to adjust those clocks for any changes due to relativity.
Because they are already adjusting proportionally to that energy input from acceleration. How many times must you ignore the science? Rulers shrink and clocks slow. The frame in which they do so - an accelerating frame - does not see this. With what ruler are you going to compare a shorter ruler too if you are the accelerating frame? Another shorter ruler????????? But when that frame returns they both immediately realize the laws of physics were not the same for each twin - because one has aged less than the other. For one time passed differently. The one under acceleration - because in the thought experiment of E's the stationary twin is stationary - his clocks and rulers never change.
Rulers and clocks don't change within the same frame of reference. They only change when comparing different frames of reference. Since we are still in the same frame of reference and all of the clocks and rulers we are using have remained in the same frame of reference, there is no need to adjust any of them for changes due to relativity.
You are getting desperate and repeating, so I will.
Because they are already adjusting proportionally to that energy input from acceleration. How many times must you ignore the science? Rulers shrink and clocks slow. The frame in which they do so - an accelerating frame - does not see this. With what ruler are you going to compare a shorter ruler too if you are the accelerating frame? Another shorter ruler????????? But when that frame returns they both immediately realize the laws of physics were not the same for each twin - because one has physically aged less than the other. For one time passed differently. The one under acceleration - because in the thought experiment of E's the stationary twin is stationary - his clocks and rulers never change.
Einstein would be laughing at you. His entire theory revolves around the idea that you can choose whatever frame of reference you want. There is no golden frame of reference that everything must be compared to. You choose the frame of reference that you want to compare to, and then you look to see if there were differences in acceleration within that frame of reference.
And yet despite your claims E told you that the laws of physics varied with acceleration in SR - but being he made his theory of GR for a static universe..... And require transforms proportional to energy levels gained from acceleration to "CONVERT" or transform one altered physical reality into another frame. Why? Because they are not the same - but proportional to energy.
The clocks we are using never left the Earth or the frame of reference that the Earth is in, so no need to adjust them. If you accelerated the Earth along with the spaceship the twins would be the same age.
The earth is already accelerating through space - at an increasing rate according to you - just like the twin in the spaceship. So if the twin in the spaceship were to instead slow to stationary with respect to the earth - their clocks would still disagree and the twin on earth would be younger. Stop ignoring that acceleration through space you claim was faster than c to begin with in which the entire universe - including us right now are undergoing - or so you claim.!!!!!
Decay rates stay constant within a frame of reference no matter how fast it is accelerating. It is only when you compare two different frames of reference that you see a difference. This was confirmed in the famous Hafele-Keating experiments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment
Sigh, no they don't. Your clocks and rulers are changing - those decay rates that share your frame are also changing - all proportionally to energy gained from acceleration. If your clock takes longer to tick, and the decay rate now takes longer to happen - you will never notice because you insist on calling two different times both a second, when they are merely "proportional."
There is no such thing as a non-accelerating frame of reference. They are all accelerating. What matters is the comparison between frames of reference.
From frames of references that are moving in a uniform transitional relationship (i.e. roughly the same).
"
Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the
same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K"
Since you admit there is no such thing as a non-accelerating frame of reference - why are you now refusing to apply the effects we know happen in accelerating frames??????
"The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration."
There is no absolute reference frame simply because one's true velocity through space can never be known - since nothing is stationary. Yet you refuse to apply the physics of accelerating frames to frames you clearly understand are accelerating - and not stationary. If you say you follow Relativity it must be true then, but E still disagrees with you.
You don't need to apply transforms if you stay in the same frame of reference.
Umm, besides the frame of the solar system, just where do you not apply them??????? Because the solar system is as E understood - a "system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K". And is why he could successfully apply GR to it. But not to any other frame of reference outside of the solar system.
