[Eternal Student]

Hi.

   There was some some acceleration involved in your ( @Zer0  description).   The spacecraft was accelerating w.r.t. some frame (probably an inertial reference frame with origin at the centre of planet earth) rather than having the spacecraft moving at a constant velocity.
    Basically, if the spacecraft had a constant velocity (w.r.t. the centre of earth) then you do not see the front blinking light hit you faster or more frequently than the back blinking light.   On the other hand, if the craft is actually accelerating toward the flash of light from the front then things can be different.

Now...Please tell me...
How the Heck am i seeing the Front one faster/more?

Left side of my body is Ageing faster than Right side?

   Actually, yes, different parts of your body will age at different rates in this acceleration.   Moving further to the front or back of the spacecraft changes the ratio (or rate) of local time passed compared to (let's say) the time co-ordinate for the centre of planet earth frame.   The acceleration in the spacecraft is indistinguishable from being in a uniform gravitational field and gravitational time dilation results will apply.     
     Your head really does age faster than your feet on planet earth purely as a consequence of gravitational time dilation.    On your spacecraft the left side of you is further up the spacecraft than the right, so it will age faster than the right side.   The difference in the amount of local time elapsed (per unit of local time at the middle of the craft) is most noticeable between the very front and very back of the craft.   Indeed, at the end of your acceleration you may notice that the light at the back front has experienced more time than the light at the front back and requires replacement while the back light is still good.   The front light has been running for more time and hence emitted more flashes of light for you to see in the middle of the craft.
Late Editing:  front <--> back,  see @Halc's post later, thank you.

Best Wishes.

ps - The Speed of Light remains Constant...ALWAYS!

   A very reasonable statement and almost completely correct.   In any inertial frame it's true and is the cornerstone of much of physics.  In a non-inertial frame (often phrased as an "accelerated frame") a light flash can propogate in different ways at different speeds.   The acceleration of your spacecraft is what made it interesting.

[alancalverd]

In short,

(a) no acceleration = no "paradox"

(b) acceleration or gravitational field = perceived change in clock rate

(c) as predicted by Einstein and observed by Heafle-Keating, Pound-Rebka and GPS systems everywhere.

(d) therefore no paradox.

[Halc]

Indeed, at the end of your acceleration you may notice that the light at the back has experienced more time than the light at the front and requires replacement while the front light is still good.   The back light has been running for more hours and hence emitted more flashes of light for you to see in the middle of the craft.

Nit: You got this part backwards. Everywhere else in the post you correctly say that the front light blinks quicker. Thanks for the thorough response.

In the ship accelerating frame, time simply passes faster at the front. At the end of acceleration, the clocks are out of sync, but at 0.01c, the difference might be somewhere between a microsecond and nanoseconds, depending on unspecified ship length.

In Earth frame, during acceleration of the ship, the front light is always moving slower than the back one, Therefore the front light logs more blinks than the back light. The rear of the ship stops accelerating first and later on the front goes inertial. In the end, both clocks are moving at the same speed and the front is a wee bit ahead due to it moving slower during acceleration. This difference might be between nanoseconds and picoseconds. They're much closer to being in sync in this original frame than they are in the ship frame.

There's a post here: 

Yes, you did that just as I split the thread. It didn't directly address any comment here, and it was a good general post. So I left it there.

How the Heck am i seeing the Front one faster/more?

As ES points out, you only see the front blink more during acceleration. After that ceases, both lights blink at the same rate, just not in sync anymore.

Let's pair the values of the giant clocks with travelling clock.
Earth clock ~ 4Y --- 0 d
Second clock ~ 5Y --- 16.3 d
Third clock ~ 6Y --- 32.6 d
Fourth clock ~ 7Y --- 49 d
Star clock ~ 8Y --- 65.3 d, then return.
Fourth clock ~ 9Y --- 81.6 d
Third clock ~ 10Y --- 97.9 d
Second clock ~ 11Y --- 114.2 d
Earth clock ~ 12Y --- 130.6 d
Observers on giant clocks and travelling clock should agree with these values.

In the travelling twin's frame, the giant clocks should tick slower than his own. Thus when he arrives at the star, it should have increased by a smaller amount than his own. Can anyone explain the discrepancy?

First of all, there is no 'the travelling twin's frame' since in no inertial frame is the travelling twin always stationary. So you need to be more specific, such as in the outbound frame (S') where the travelling twin is stationary for 65.3 days.
In that frame 65.3 days pass for him, and during those 2+ months, nearly 3 days (2.92) pass for each of the giant clocks moving past him at 0.999c.

You could have figured out that very trivially yourself since the gamma of 22.4 has already been posted (by you no less, in post 39).

Likewise in the inbound frame, 65.3 more days pass for him, and during those 2+ months, nearly 3 days pass for each of the giant clocks moving past him at 0.999c in the other direction.

All the rest is simply relativity of simultaneity. The clocks are synced differently from one frame to  the next.

No discrepancy has been identified. If you think there is one, you need to point it out.

[varsigma]

Apparently, yes, special relativity is about synchronizing clocks.

A good 'primitive' for a clock is a wave, as William Burke points out in his textbook. So clock synchronization has the same problems as wave synchronization.
I guess you could conclude that what's special about special relativity is the possibility of synchronous clocks, aside from the practicalities. In general clocks are not synchronized, as Einstein sorta points out.

[Zer0]

... Because Craft is moving Forward ...

According to whom is the craft moving forward? You, at rest in it?

If One canNot contemplate the question, what then, are the Chances of answering it.

As it is Visibly clear, i have received Satisfactory answers from the Seniors.

Still, thanks for your input.
Better luck, next time, try Harder!

ps - anyways evaluating users neurological disorders & getting threads locked up is your only forte!

[pzkpfw]

... Because Craft is moving Forward ...

According to whom is the craft moving forward? You, at rest in it?

If One canNot contemplate the question, what then, are the Chances of answering it.

As it is Visibly clear, i have received Satisfactory answers from the Seniors.

Still, thanks for your input.
Better luck, next time, try Harder!

ps - anyways evaluating users neurological disorders & getting threads locked up is your only forte!

Yes, you've missed the point.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Furthermore, there being no material present, ε0 and μ0 must be isotropic, so the speed of light is independent of direction in free space.

Is the velocity of light also independent of direction in free space?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

... Because Craft is moving Forward ...

According to whom is the craft moving forward? You, at rest in it?

My common sense says, an observer staying in the same inertial frame of reference as the ship before it started accelerating.
As zero said, the ship is steadily moving away from its initial position at 1%c during the experiment with the blinkers. It's no longer accelerating.

Let's not complicate things unnecessarily just to avoid giving a falsifiable scientific answer.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

(a) no acceleration = no "paradox"

This video says otherwise.

How to intuitively solve the twin's paradox? (No acceleration)

Chapters:
00:00 What is the twin's paradox?
00:48 Why acceleration doesn't solve twin's paradox
2:24 Twin's paradox without acceleration (Earth's frame)
4:42 The traveling frame
7:13 My new website - floatheadphysics (ad)
8:48 Earth's frame again - with the flag
11:38 Travelling frame again - with the flag
13:30 The resolution!
14:45 Relativity of simultaneity
17:02 Isn't the root cause the acceleration?
18:20 What do they 'see'?

In this video, we'll intuitively resolve the twin's paradox. This version of the twin's paradox involves no acceleration. And no, you don't need equivalence principle, and you don't need general relativity to solve it. Twin's paradox can be completely solved using special theory of relativity and the correct usage of relativity of simultaneity.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Actually, yes, different parts of your body will age at different rates in this acceleration. 

In my understanding of zero's question, the acceleration has stopped when the speed is 1%c.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So you need to be more specific, such as in the outbound frame (S') where the travelling twin is stationary for 65.3 days.
In that frame 65.3 days pass for him, and during those 2+ months, nearly 3 days (2.92) pass for each of the giant clocks moving past him at 0.999c.

So, when the star clock arrives at him, it shows around 8Y, but it only increased by 2.92d during the outbound trip.
And when the earth clock arrives back at him, it will show around 12Y, while also only increased by 2.92d during the inbound trip.

[Zer0]

... Because Craft is moving Forward ...

According to whom is the craft moving forward? You, at rest in it?

If One canNot contemplate the question, what then, are the Chances of answering it.

As it is Visibly clear, i have received Satisfactory answers from the Seniors.

Still, thanks for your input.
Better luck, next time, try Harder!

ps - anyways evaluating users neurological disorders & getting threads locked up is your only forte!

Yes, you've missed the point.

& You missed the Whole ps Line!
Goodbye & Tc.

@Halc
I am Sorry for Breaking the Rules.
i Apologize.

Being harsh n rude n judging layman enthusiasts & hinting they are schizoid or loony or cuckoo just coz they think differently & trying to learn difficult concepts is Totally Wrong!

ps - don't judge a book by it's cover, or a fish by it's ability to climb a wall.
(idk & idc who said it, but it matters)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Bad idea to reference your common sense or intuitions when discussing relativity that you obviously don't understand.

Here's what understanding means.

Gregory Chaitin propounds a view that comprehension is a kind of data compression.[19] In his essay "The Limits of Reason", he argues that understanding something means being able to figure out a simple set of rules that explains it. For example, we understand why day and night exist because we have a simple model?the rotation of the earth?that explains a tremendous amount of data?changes in brightness, temperature, and atmospheric composition of the earth. We have compressed a large amount of information by using a simple model that predicts it. Similarly, we understand the number 0.33333... by thinking of it as one-third. The first way of representing the number requires five concepts ("0", "decimal point", "3", "infinity", "infinity of 3"); but the second way can produce all the data of the first representation, but uses only three concepts ("1", "division", "3"). Chaitin argues that comprehension is this ability to compress data. This perspective on comprehension forms the foundation of some models of intelligent agents, as in Nello Cristianini's book "The shortcut", where it is used to explain that machines can understand the world in fundamentally non-human ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding#As_a_model

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

For instance, there is not, and never way, a paradox in the twins scenario. There's no rule broken, so no paradox to resolve. It perhaps contradicts ones intuitions, but that't the problem with the intuitions/common sense rather than the theory.

You can repeat saying that there's no paradox to resolve, and stop at it.
We can also say that 2≠1, and stop at it. But if someone comes saying that he can proof that 2=1, we might be interested to find out where the mistake was made.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This question, as worded, makes no sense. If you are asking if light pulses travelling in different directions have the same velocity, of course not, by definition. If you're asking if a given pulse of light has the same velocity in one inertial frame as another, the answer there is also no.

Yet, you can answer it. My question is a binary question, which only accept yes or no as answer, but perhaps still depends on other factors not mentioned in the question. It's similar to the question "is 2=1?". The answer is no, but the question is not meaningless.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

All participants are in all frames. It is not possible to exit a frame in SR. What you probably mean is 'an observer remaining stationary relative to the frame in which the ship was stationary before it started accelerating'.

I'm just trying to stress clarity here. It doesn't help the discussion to make ambiguous statements.

You think it isn't clear because you seem to ignore the word "inertial" there.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It does not anywhere state that the twins scenario is paradoxcal.
It does initially call it a paradox, because that's how it is typically named in pop literature, but it it was never actually a paradox, SR would be disproved by being self-inconsistent.

This is literally in the description of the video.

2:24 Twin's paradox without acceleration (Earth's frame)

[alancalverd]

2:24 Twin's paradox without acceleration (Earth's frame)

This phrase does not make sense.
"Twins" means two identical clocks initially synchronised.
If they don't move relative to each other, they stay in sync, and we have to observe them for some time (at least one tick) to establish that fact. 
To establish a relative velocity, we have to accelerate at least one  of them.
The consequent loss of synchrony has been measured and corresponds precisely with the relativistic prediction.
Therefore no paradox.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

To establish a relative velocity, we have to accelerate at least one  of them.

What do you think would happen if they are both accelerated equally in magnitude, but in opposite direction?
They will have some relative velocity to each other. What would happen when they are brought back to initial position?
Will they still be synchronized?

[alancalverd]

That would make sense to me.