How is the Ehrenfest paradox resolved

Blog - Jocelyne Lopez

I come back to my entry Einstein did not invent the wheel ... about an extensive discussion held in the MAHAG forum in 2009, where the famous paradox of Paul Ehrenfest, a personal friend of Albert Einstein, was examined by professionally qualified participants, as this topic was again examined was taken up in the MAHAG forum, and reflect some exchanges from the new discussion - it should be noted that Dr. Joachim Schulz, owner of the bullying forum Alpha Centauri against critics of the theory of relativity, used the pseudonym "Gluon"Involved:

12/28/11 - Quote from Faber:

To the 'Ehrenfest Paradox'

As an example, here is a gear wheel that rotates between an upper and a lower toothed rail, the toothed rails being moved in the positive or negative x-direction:

The picture shows the following:

• The 'Ehrenfest Paradox' is not a paradox. The consistent solution is shown.
• Because of the relativistic addition of speed, symmetry is not necessary (contrary to contrary views that were represented in this forum by relativists and critics (including myself).)
• There is no reason whatsoever to deal with the matter in any non-Euclidean space-time (contrary to contrary views advocated by relativists in this forum).
• According to the special theory of relativity, there are also fast cog railways (in contrast to contrary views that were represented in this forum by relativists and critics (including myself)).
• The Wiki article `Ehrenfest ́s Paradox claims that, according to the theory of relativity, rigid bodies cannot exist. Unfortunately, as you cannot see here, this is wrong. However, the software also displays a rigid gear, the angular speed of which varies, correctly and without contradictions.

Conclusion: The 'Ehrenfest Paradox' is not a paradox. Confusion only arises when one asks, "What does this or that observer see?" The correct question must always be: "What does it look like when it is presented in this or that inertial frame of reference?"

If the gear is represented in a reference system that is fixed to a tooth of the wheel, then it is not an inertial reference system. An object that rests in this frame of reference is not free of forces. Such a consideration would be as complicated as it is superfluous. If it is not only about kinematics, but also about dynamics, then such a consideration is also misleading, since the description then contains pseudo forces that do not exist in nature.

05.02.11 - Quote from Jocelyne Lopez:

I don't see how a consistent solution to this paradox is presented here ...

I remind you that in the special theory of relativity no real, material deformations of the moving objects take place.

I don't see that the red spinning wheel should still be a wheel in the relativistic representation, the deformations are obvious ...

Okay, these deformations exist virtually in the special theory of relativity (as a measurement effect), but this means that the wheel in physical reality remains a round wheel, as in classical physics. So what relevance does the representation of virtual, nonexistent deformations have? Where is the point in the effort to represent these virtual measuring effects of special relativity?

It seems to me as if one were trying, for example, to precisely describe and determine the dimensions of the hallucination of a half-dehydrated person in the desert who sees an oasis with 4 palm trees. What is it good for?

02/05/11 - Quote from Faber:

As I have already explained, the picture is obsolete.

02/06/11 - Quote from Jocelyne Lopez:

Sorry, I hadn't seen it ...

I just looked at the pictures - that's what they're there for, to illustrate the argument. But the last picture in this thread also shows a deformation of the wheel according to Einstein. In this respect, my question from my previous post still applies.

Have you fundamentally changed your opinion about the existence of an unsolved paradox in the rotating cogwheel train at Einstein, which was the conclusion of your thread at the time (I followed the discussion regularly and attentively ...) and also about Dr. Joachim Schulz was declared unsolved? Please refer:

04/16/09 - Quote from Dr. Joachim Schulz:
That's the way it is. According to the special theory of relativity, a cogwheel train would not work at relativistic speeds. [...]

Is the Ehrenfest paradox an unsolved paradox in special relativity?

02/06/11 - Quote from Dr. Joachim Schulz:

Quote by Jocelyne Lopez:
Is the Ehrenfest paradox an unsolved paradox in special relativity?

No.

02/06/11 - Quote from Jocelyne Lopez:

So you have meanwhile changed your mind that the Ehrenfest paradox cannot be solved with the special theory of relativity?
[…]
Hmm ... no reasoned answer?

So one should assume that with the honor festival paradox, the situation occurs with you that has existed for decades with the twin paradox, namely that the authors of the relativistic change their point of view from one statement to the other without saying a word about how GO Mueller described it:

Quote from G.O. Mueller:
The situation is made even more colorful by the fact that there is a grotesque disagreement among the relativity authors on this question, so that it would be better to speak of two theories, a theory with sham effects and a theory with real effects.

One should not, however, expect that the authors, after careful deliberation, will form a well-founded opinion, that each will have made a decision on this question, and that they will choose one of the two sides. Rather, some authors switch their decision from one account to the next without saying a word about it, and many fluctuate between the two positions in the same book as they see fit.

07.02.11 - Quote from Dr. Joachim Schulz:

You are hardly in a position to demand objectivity.

07.02.11 - Quote from Jocelyne Lopez:

That is very subjective.

But I'm not the only one who is following this discussion about the honor festival paradox - or the extensive previous discussion from 2009 - and is interested in clarifying it.

So it would be objective for you to answer the question about your two contradicting statements, see above:

2009: The honor festival paradox cannot be solved with the special theory of relativity
2011: The honor festival paradox can be solved with the special theory of relativity.

02/07/11 - Quote from Dr. Joachim Schulz:

I have not made any contradicting statements about the honor festival paradox. It wasn't a paradox in 2009 either.

02/07/11 - Quote from Jocelyne Lopez:

Her statement from 04/16/09 reads:

Quote from Dr. Joachim Schulz:
That's the way it is. According to the special theory of relativity, a cogwheel train would not work at relativistic speeds. But how is that a problem for theory? To the best of my knowledge, such a fast cog railway has never been observed.

There are 3 questions to be answered here:

would not work according to the special theory of relativity“:
1. Does it mean that one might have to apply general relativity to the Ehrenfest paradox?

do not work at relativistic speeds“:
2. Does it mean that the special theory of relativity is not valid at relativistic speeds?

To the best of my knowledge, such a fast cog railway has never been observed“:
3. Does it mean that the special theory of relativity cannot be verified experimentally because the speeds are too high?

07.02.11 - Quote from Dr. Joachim Schulz:

Do you think any scientist has a duty to give you private tuition?
[…]
To 1) No, you don't have to, it can also be viewed with special relativity theory. I just found a paper on this in Foundations Of Physics, Issue 33, Page 981. But if you can do general relativity, it might actually be easier to just look at the metrics of a rotating coordinate system.

Regarding 2) The special theory of relativity is of course valid at relativistic speeds. Hence the term "relativistic".

to 3) At least not with a rack railway. Have you ever been to the mountains? Cog railways are much slower than ordinary trains. And even in the TGV, relativistic effects are small.

07.02.11 - Quote from Jocelyne Lopez:

I don't ask for "Private lessons“From nobody and I am not here at school: Just like you and all the other participants, I take part in a discussion forum, regularly since 2005, here in a thread about the honor festival paradox, a topic that I included in 2009 MAHAG carefully followed and in which I also participated with other participants. That is the point of a discussion forum. So what do you mean by an alleged claim by me to a "Private lessons„?

Quote from Dr. Joachim Schulz:
To 1) No, you don't have to, it can also be viewed with special relativity theory. I just found a paper on this in Foundations Of Physics, Issue 33, Page 981. But if you can do general relativity, it might actually be easier to just look at the metrics of a rotating coordinate system.

Then why did you testify in 2009 in an exchange with technically experienced participants "That's the way it is. According to the special theory of relativity, a cogwheel train would not work at relativistic speeds. ”Did you change your mind after 2009? Or do you represent the two contradicting views at the same time that the special theory of relativity makes a cogwheel train right and wrong "considered„?

Quote from Dr. Joachim Schulz:
Regarding 2) The special theory of relativity is of course valid at relativistic speeds. Hence the term "relativistic".

Then why did you testify in 2009 that "According to the special theory of relativity, a cogwheel train would not work at relativistic speeds"? Have you changed your mind since 2009 and are of the opinion that a cogwheel train would work at relativistic speeds according to the special theory of relativity?

Quote from Dr. Joachim Schulz:
to 3) At least not with a rack railway. Have you ever been to the mountains? Cog railways are much slower than ordinary trains. And even in the TGV, relativistic effects are small.

Do you think that none of theordinary“Speeds, neither in rack railways nor in trains, including TGV, the relativistic effects become noticeable and can be observed? Or at what speed, in your opinion, would a cogwheel train "relativistic“Work or stop working?

——————————————
NB: Dr. Joachim Schulz has not continued his "explanations" and has not yet responded to this discussion.

Perhaps we will nevertheless learn why the special theory of relativity is not valid at relativistic speeds, although it is principally and specifically responsible for it, and why this strange circumstance is not a paradox at all and does not pose a problem for the validity of the theory, maybe ...

Sequel follows…