Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-01T18:25:44Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 1 January 2017
Line 8:		Line 8:
	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

	<em>Eur. J. Phys.</em> 26 (2005) pp. 19-23. In the rod and hole paradox as described by Rindler (1961 Am. J. Phys. 29 365?6) ('length contraction paradox'), a rigid rod moves at high speed over a table towards a hole of the same size. A bystander expects the rod to fall into the hole, but a co-moving observer expects it to pass unhindered over the hole. According to the accepted solution as first described in that paper, the entire rod must fall somewhat into the hole and therefore cannot remain rigid when the hole moves underneath it. We present an improved approach that is based on retardation due to speed of stress propagation, and in which proper stiffness is not affected. After showing how to solve the similar but simpler car and hole paradox, we find with the same approach that the rod as depicted in Rindler's paper will not fall into the hole as was claimed and that it may pass practically unhindered over it.[[Category:Scientific Paper]]		<em>Eur. J. Phys.</em> 26 (2005) pp. 19-23. In the rod and hole paradox as described by Rindler (1961 Am. J. Phys. 29 365?6) ('length contraction paradox'), a rigid rod moves at high speed over a table towards a hole of the same size. A bystander expects the rod to fall into the hole, but a co-moving observer expects it to pass unhindered over the hole. According to the accepted solution as first described in that paper, the entire rod must fall somewhat into the hole and therefore cannot remain rigid when the hole moves underneath it. We present an improved approach that is based on retardation due to speed of stress propagation, and in which proper stiffness is not affected. After showing how to solve the similar but simpler car and hole paradox, we find with the same approach that the rod as depicted in Rindler's paper will not fall into the hole as was claimed and that it may pass practically unhindered over it.

			[[Category:Scientific Paper\|rod hole paradox re-examined]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2016-12-30T05:56:34Z

Imported from text file

New page

{{Infobox paper
| title = The Rod and Hole Paradox Re-examined
| author = [[Harald T Van Lintel]]
| published = 2005
| journal = [[Scientific Commons]]
}}

==Abstract==

<em>Eur. J. Phys.</em> 26 (2005) pp. 19-23. In the rod and hole paradox as described by Rindler (1961 Am. J. Phys. 29 365?6) ('length contraction paradox'), a rigid rod moves at high speed over a table towards a hole of the same size. A bystander expects the rod to fall into the hole, but a co-moving observer expects it to pass unhindered over the hole. According to the accepted solution as first described in that paper, the entire rod must fall somewhat into the hole and therefore cannot remain rigid when the hole moves underneath it. We present an improved approach that is based on retardation due to speed of stress propagation, and in which proper stiffness is not affected. After showing how to solve the similar but simpler car and hole paradox, we find with the same approach that the rod as depicted in Rindler's paper will not fall into the hole as was claimed and that it may pass practically unhindered over it.[[Category:Scientific Paper]]

The Rod and Hole Paradox Re-examined - Revision history

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

Maintenance script: Imported from text file