SR is a consistent theory according to its limitations and postulates. I agree. There is no reason for me to argue beyond that in this discussion. I am sure some readers understood what I meant. There is no point of arguing when someone continuously misinterpret your arguments by making imaginary extensions to them.Dude, why write things that are so obviously untrue.
You wrote, "All explanations within the frame of SR alone are wrong because there is no key to differentiate the twins." That's simply false, as many citations above have established.
You wrote, "The change is associated to the twin in the rocket by a purely arbitrary a priori choice." That is also false, because even the twin in the rocket knows that she changed direction.
You wrote, "There are no explanations concerning acceleration and inertia in SR." This is also false, because every textbook that deals with SR covers acceleration.
You wrote, "In Special Relativity, the acceleration is entirely reciprocal for both twins." That is false because, again, if we are to include acceleration, the acceleration for one twin is different because she changes direction according to her own initial trajectory.
You wrote, "SR is not just an add on to Newtonian mechanics, it is the start of a new theory." And while it is true that SR is in some sense a new theory, it begins with the assumption of Newtonian mechanics.
You wrote, "With SR alone, you cannot really explain why the accelerating frame will have a slower time." And there are various demonstrations that this claim is false.
My end point is that there is a more complete explanation to find for time dilation. The quest for a unified theory passes by a single explanation for time dilation. People tend to stick too much within SR and forget that it is only true within strong limitations.But the point of trying to claim that there is a twin "paradox" is that there is some problem when we consider SR only. This is essential to understanding the scenario.You not only refuse to consider SR alone, you refuse to actually consider SR.
The other thing to understand is that the choice of validation of SR with "inertial frame" only is an apriori choice. This choice produces the asymmetry of the twin paradox.But the choice isn't arbitrary: we are not free to consider either twin to be not moving, one is moving by definition and SR has an exact way to represent this.