Why is the Wikipedia article about Bell's spaceship "paradox" disputed at all? Link to the article This problem is ridiculously simple. The condition that the spaceships experience the same acceleration implies that their world lines will have the same shape. (The acceleration doesn't have to be constant. It's sufficient that both spaceships accelerate the same way). This implies that the length of the rope will remain constant in the launcher's frame. Think about that for a second. After a while, the rope is moving at a high velocity in the launcher's frame, and must therefore be Lorentz contracted, but it's still the same length! That means that it must have been stretched. If it was already stretched to its maximum length when the acceleration began, it must break. It's as simple as that. This is all very basic stuff that belongs in an introductory level class about special relativity. So why is this article disputed at all? Is it because of the common (but silly) misunderstanding that you can't solve a problem involving any kind of acceleration entirely in SR? (It's really weird how many people who have studied SR still believe that you need GR for problems like this). Or is it because some people who understand that the rope gets stretched are arguing that SR somehow also implies that the rope gets stronger, so it can handle getting stretched? I can't think of a third reason. I know that some people here have been working on this article. Perhaps one of you can explain this to me.