I tried calculating the mass of a rotating cylinder but since I got the wrong answer I must have made a mistake somewhere. Can someone check my work and see if they can spot where I went wrong? The derivation is at

 

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/rotating_cylinder.htm

 

Thanks

 

Pete

I am not clued up on the math behind rotating cylinders, unfortunately. Sorry.

 

What's the work for Pete?

I am not clued up on the math behind rotating cylinders, unfortunately. Sorry.

 

What's the work for Pete?

I'm doing it only to see if I can solve it. No other reason.

The rotating cylinder and relativity is very interesting conceptually. If the cylinder had a large diameter, it is possible for the outer surface to approach C, while the near center maintains linear velocity close to zero. The result is the outside of the cylinder could get smaller than the inside, due to distance contraction being highest at the surface. The outside could also appear to rotate at a slower angular velocity than just off center, due to time dilation. The result would be two extreme references existing in the same phenomena. With the higher relativistic mass on the surface, as virtual mass/energy, would relativistic mass/energy flow from the surface to the core in an attempt to remove the dual reference? If it did, could the mass on the surface drop below what is expected for the distance contraction and time dilation, to create an odd surface anomaly?

I repeat the question I asked in the other thread about this topic. Given several viewpoints what would I see. what would the disk with the smaller outside surface that inside surface look like?

I repeat the question I asked in the other thread about this topic. Given several viewpoints what would I see. what would the disk with the smaller outside surface that inside surface look like?

Since there would be deformations due to the induced stress in body then different materials would deform in different, but similar, ways, I think that they'd al still be cylinders though.

 

Isn't there anybody in the know who is in willing to take a shot at answering this question? I sent it to my old college physics advisor and he told me to recalculate it. I be;ieve that he means to tell me that I made a simple mistake (He rarely gives direct answers). I plan on redoing the work from scratch No takers though huh?

 

Sorry I haven't posted recently. I've unexpectedly been in the hospital for a bit.

 

Pete