A.T.
Science Advisor
- 13,150
- 4,124
Yes, this is the flaw in the reasoning. The usual length contraction factor is isotropic: It depends only on the speed, not on the direction. The moving ruler (aligned with direction of motion) is always shorter than the resting ruler of the same proper length.Sagittarius A-Star said:Regarding "But here the static rulers in O_r should be twice as long": This is only true, if you apply the standard Lorentz transformation. You can do this only if you define, that the one-way speed of light with reference to O_r is the same clockwise and counterclockwise.
But this isotropic length contraction factor is derived using the assumption that light propagation is isotropic. Which is not valid in the rotating frame along the circumference. In the example I gave, the rulers forming O_i are not at half their proper length in the rotating rest frame of O_r, but rather must be at twice their proper length, in order to span the circumference measured in the rotating frame by the resting rulers forming O_r. So in rotating frames, you can have not only kinematic length contraction, but also kinematic length elongation, depending on the direction of motion.