wrote:
Todd wrote:

[snip]

Nevertheless, I don't believe that the resolution of the paradox lies in
establishing that there are no real materials that are rigid enough to
withstand the rotations imagined in the thought experiment. For some
reason, that doesn't seem to me to get to the heart of the paradox.

It does seem unsatisfying, yes.

In case it wasn't clear, though, my idea is that there
are no *theoretical* materials rigid enough. This is
often the resolution for newbie paradoxes (e.g. use a
1-ly-long rigid rod to push a doorbell) but here the
difficulties of analysis are much greater. That is, if
I am right, what makes it unsatisfying is the difficulty.
*Not* that we are using real materials; I'm not proposing
that at all (except now and then for illustrative purposes
only).
I am proposing at all.