In Bell's scenario the accelerometers show identical readings and the rockets stay a constant distance apart in the initial inertial frame.
They have no idea what the two accelerometers actually read.
If you "require" them to show different readings, then you are back to denying Bell's scenario.
In the Bell scenario, the accelerometers show different readings because the length contraction equation requires it. If the initial inertial observers conclude that the separation in their frame is constant (which was the forced situation), then the length contraction equation REQUIRES that the separation increases in the frame of the trailing rocket. And THAT requires that the thrust of the leading rocket is greater than the thrust of the trailing rocket.
Any comment on my Minkowski diagram?
I haven't had time to try to sort it out yet. All I need to know is that IF the (incorrect) assumption is made that the separation between the rockets increases (according to the people on the trailing rocket), the result (as shown in my paper) is that the home twin will see the leading rocket instantaneously jump away from her,
which is absurd, which means the assumption that the rocket separation increases (according to the people on the trailing rocket) is incorrect, and must be rejected.
Here's your challenge: Find the FIRST statement in my paper (it's less than a page long) that you contend is incorrect, and report that statement. I'll copy that paper below, to make that easy:
A Non-Constant Separation of the Rockets Contradicts the Resolution of the Twin Paradox
The resolution of the Twin Paradox is well-known: during the traveler's (his) instantaneous
turnaround, he must conclude that his home twin's (her) age instantaneously increases.But IF
it's true that the two separated rockets in the Bell's Paradox (whose accelerometers show equal
constant readings) DON'T maintain a constant separation, that CONTRADICTS the resolution of
the Twin Paradox.
Here's how to see that contradiction:
Suppose we start out with him being separated and stationary with respect to her.
Imagine that, at the instant before he instantaneously increases his speedtoward her, he is
colocated and stationary with respect to the TRAILING rocket.And suppose that the LEADING
rocket is colocated and stationary with HER then. (The rockets are unaccelerated before and at
that instant).
When he instantaneously changes his speed with respect to her from zero to some large non-zero
value, the two rockets instantaneously do the same thing.
During his instantaneous speed change, suppose that the leading rocket is ASSUMED to
instantaneously INCREASE its separation from the trailing rocket.THAT would result in HER
seeing the leading rocket INSTANTANEOUSLY move a finite distance away from her, WHICH
IS ABSURD! So the ASSUMPTION that the separation of the rockets isn't constant CAN’T be
correct.