It is a length contraction paradox, so it is going to have length and contraction in it.
And I made it look like the barn paradox because I am vaguely aware of it.
But there are no doors and no issues with simultaneity.
Take a hexagon disk, rotate it, even though it is rotation there must be SR length contraction since the deviation of curved to linear is relative and infinity variable, so the length of the sides contract as you rotate it and you can then fit it in the cylinder.
The paradox is not different, there are no doors as there is no exit.
It can fit around permanently in one frame (Lab).
But can’t even enter the cylinder at all in the other (disk).
The other one makes sense of both observations, this one can’t, a cylinder can’t be simultaneously placed around the hexagon and simultaneously not around it because it won’t fit.
My point is that you can only alter my experiment until it is different and now like one I already knew and knew the solution to.
Harder to measure lengths now, so let’s still put marks on it.
The plank argument I made is identical except we remove sides of the hexagon till you arrive at one, a plank.
Since the radius doesn’t shrink the length can’t contract, well that is an issue it suggests the disk breaks, in other words and disk rotating is a paradox, one thing must happen the other thing can’t happen, but both must happen.
Never the less the hexagon can be either converted an outline of a hexagon, or back to one side of the hexagon.t’s self with anything that rotates.
If anything that is moving in a way that could be consistent with a rotating disk of any size it can’t undergo length contraction at all! Since that super slight curve in it’s motion could be because it is part of a galaxy sized rotation/orbit etc!
Now unless you have motion that can’t POSSIBLY describe a portion of a very large circular motion of ANY size!?!?!
So the largest galaxy or larger no matter how fast it rotates can’t undergo any length contraction if we compare it to our Hexagon.
Thanks for breaking Relativity for me.
So the circumference does get smaller!
Great, if we were to put a measuring tape around the new smaller circumference, and before it was rotating it was 20 units of length in circumference, and not is is rotating enough to be 19 units of length we can make the measuring tape or the cylinder fit since the cylinder as the circumference but the center is a hole happy to accept and geometry of space with no concern.
I don’t trust math because it is very possible to do something in math that is absurd if you could see physically what you were saying.
I could easily make an equation even at my skill level that takes physical things and does something with them that is find mathematically, but impossible physically.
Id SR is that, not flawed mathematically (which I do not believe, but can;t be sure) but nonsensical physically…
Consider the disk above, if one person is at 180 degrees and another at zero they are constantly heading in opposite directions.
If you are really having trouble understanding this, consider instead of a disk we had a 2 pulleys and a belt, now place you and the girl as far away from you as possible, as so:
her-> O O <-you
I don’t think there is an ascii aret char belt, but the O’s are the pulleys and the arrows point to the most distant points which compare to if it were a disk to 0 and 180.
She will never get far from you, but do you see that on the straight portion you will pass each other and be heading in opposite directions, she is moving realative to you.
In rotation that is constantly present, but the way that she is moving though always in sight is opposite.
I would also have relative motion to someone standing in the center of the disk but constantly see them and not be moving away.
Linear motion can’t do this for more that a moment.
I think you have ‘trouble with the curv’. (It’s a recent movie).
Even if we were moving past each other, why is this a problem?
Really? Really? Getting up from a stationary position and moving is not notable acceleration?
Getting up out of my chair involves very very slight acceleration, I would not expect to come back from the kitchen a few minutes later and have people overjoyed at my sudden miraculous return. You don’t look any older. Wow, that was some cup of tea!
Yeah, I said they walk, with their LEGS, not accelerate at 10000G and go to .8 c.
I have personally never noticed SR or GR time dilation in my day to day life, damn I must not be noticing! Then again, sometime I do wonder where the time went, OH!
Ok, should I have said that the acceleration from standing to walking does not seem to require analysis under GR for analysis of acceleration based time dilation, which I might add has been experimentally disproved with Muons at incredibly g-forces.
Are you saying I need to do this on a carousel to notice the effects?
Or are you claiming that if the difference between a linear velocity is .9c or .9c plus walking speed there will be a big difference?
How fast do you walk?
I am getting at the fact that if they each see the other time dilated for an extended period of time, much like if we sat in chairs opposite and both note the other is almost frozen in time right across from each other.
It quickly becomes untenable, and if we turned the effect off (stopped the rotation) and time returned to normal, both would expect to see the other with a late watch and no 5’oclock shadow like we have grown during the experiment.
Since the paradoxical appearance can’s be justified at all once the effect is ended, then both must see the other to have beards they didn’t have an instant ago (symmetrical), the missing time must be observed to happen with extreme rapidity as they come to a stop.
I am 99.9% sure it does not refer to Selleri’s argument.
I have not read it though. I very much expect it is unique.