Been a while since I've chimed in.
The traveling twin, upon reaching the turnaround point, can just as easily decide to put himself in her place instead of his own.
It seems rather pointless to choose one frame (presumably the one in which he is stationary) on the outbound leg and then switch to her frame for the return journey. It still requires doing a frame rotation (Lorentz transform), an added complication on top of what is required if one just sticks to a single inertial frame the entire time.
I agree with the statement though. It would be 'just as easy' (and no more or less wrong) to do that as it would to do it Mike's way. My point was that it was easier (and no more correct) if the choice was not to do frame switches at all.
On his entire outbound inertial leg, he MUST use the Time Dilation Equation (TDE)
He would be using the TDE regardless of the arbitrary frame of choice. Nobody says otherwise.
the fundamental assumption of Special Relativity, that any light pulse moves at 186,000 miles per second in any inertial reference frame, according to the people stationary in that inertial frame.
The premise is more accurately stated that "any light pulse moves at 186,000 miles per second in any inertial reference frame". Anybody in any frame, stationary or not, inertial or not, should not be disputing that if they're accepting SR. There are very much those that dispute it, and that would result in a different theory, no less valid.
Yes, the TDE follows from the two premises of SR, and does not follow if the premises are denied.
Why would he WANT to use her frame?
I gave examples where one would very much want to use a different frame. You seemed to agree with them by your lack of response concerning why those examples were wrong, and that the observer in question is obligated to use only the one frame rather than the one I suggested.
In the case of Halc's reasoning, he prefers to use a frame where her age does not change back and forth if the distant twin decides to travel back and forth like the alien riding his bike.
Agree, and since any inertial frame has this desirable property, any arbitrary choice of one of them will do.
Then she would have to conclude that, according to him, her age does change during his turnaround. Note that she KNOWS her age does not change in that way.
I agree with Mike here. If she knows that Bob is using Mike's method, then she would know that her age does change in that way, in the same way that I can know that my age, according the bicycling twin who is using Mike's method, is currently wildly swinging from way-before birth to way-after-death.
It's nothing but an abstraction in the alien's mind after all, nothing physical. Physically, there's just my worldline which has no actual 'current age' unless you're a presentist, and a presentist interpretation is incompatible with Mike's assertions.
My point was that, at each instant of her (the home twin's) life, her brain is in some specific state. None of those states can be changed by what he (the traveling twin) does.
An 'instant' is a frame dependent thing. At each event (not a frame dependent thing), anything at that event is in some specific state. Brains are not treated different than any other state of matter. So agreeing, with qualifications. You seem to treat brains and conclusions as something privileged, when in fact SR is not a theory about brains.
And that's the only way WE can explain it!
This is of course a crock. There are plenty of explanations of the twins scenario that don't do it that way.
My point was that, at each instant of her (the home twin's) life, her brain is in some specific state. None of those states can be changed by what he (the traveling twin) does.
Don't understand this assertion. I can say to my sister (while pacing back and forth) that there's a spider in her hair, and that will very much change her brain state, albeit somewhat in the future of the making of that statement since it takes time for my vocalization to reach her. If you're talking about instant (faster than light) causation, well, you seem to assert that as well in your topics, so you can't have it both ways and deny it here.
One doesn't CHOOSE to "use" a frame
That's what's under contention. We say one can. If you deny it, you need to specify how a different choice violates SR, else it's just you asserting something you can't back.