Because it had no relation to reality and wasn’t worth discussing...
On the contrary your explanation of the paradox is so ridiculously wrong it shows my post went way over your head.
The twin accelerated away from the stationary frame (his clocks slow). They then remain at the slower rate until he reduces velocity to turn around. At this point they once again tick at their former rate. He then accelerated back towards his starting point and his clocks once again slow. As he reduces speed to land, his clocks begin to speed up to match the rate they ticked before he had left on his journey.
Totally wrong; the twin is not accelerating away or towards the stationary twin; acceleration only occurs during the turnaround period which is infinitesimally small.
If you actually understood the Minkowski spacetime diagrams, the world lines away from and towards the stationary twin are straight not curved indicating the moving twin is moving at a constant velocity, in this case 0.8c.
The descrepenxy in elapsed time exists because his clocks slowed and remained at that slower rate while at the increased speed.
Wrong again.
The discrepancy or asymmetry as I explained is due to the Doppler effect.
When the twin is moving away from the stationary twin the frequency of their signals is reduced (as wavelength increases), on the return journey the frequency of the signals is increased (as wavelength decreases).
This results in the stationary twin sending out 10 signals while the moving twin only six indicating the clock of the moving twin is running slower; all of which was explained in my post which you “supposedly” understood.
Now, since you understand that clocks slow with increases in velocity and speed up with decreases in velocity, what is your excuse for trying to pretend our clocks haven’t slowed from our increase in velocity????
All you all have is double talk to avoid what you know to be true.
You are not trying to calculate the decay rate in the present at this velocity, but the decay rate as it was at some point in our past.
And what makes your absurdity truly astounding is you even recognize that the twins clocks are changing in his present, (even admit it) then try to pretend they have always been the same.......
This is D-K effect at its finest; you are giving us a lecture blissfully unaware your target audience understands your comprehension of the subject matter is zero.
Your argument is refuted by a simple device used frequently by engineers; the humble accelerometer.
It works on Newton’s third law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction and can tell us whether a frame is accelerated or inertial.
Using your car analogy, if the car is stationary (yes it is stationary in the Earth’s frame of reference because it is not moving relative to the surface), or moving at a constant velocity, the accelerometer reads zero.
Plant your foot on the accelerator pedal and you are pushed back into your seat according to Newton’s third law.
This backward or proper acceleration is what an accelerometer measures.
In your stationary car the proper acceleration as a reaction force to the tangential acceleration is zero despite the Earth orbit or the solar system orbit around the galaxy.
The explanation is simple; the orbits are very nearly circular resulting in the tangential acceleration being negligibly small.
Here is some simple maths to illustrate the point for the Earth's orbit.
The Earth’s velocity at perihelion is 30,300 m/s, at aphelion 29,300 m/s.
Since the perihelion and aphelion are separated by six months = 1.5777 X 10⁷ seconds.
The tangential acceleration = 1000/1.5777 X 10⁷ = 0.000064 m/s².
So your idea that the earth is in an accelerated frame is totally bogus, the decay rates do not differ with time as velocity remains constant.
Even if the Earth was accelerating you still have the problem of defining an inertial frame in order for time dilation to occur.
