| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 Apr 2006 01:10:32 PM |
| Object: |
Space time question? |
Suppose you shoot an arrow at a certain distance from a target. At one
point the arrow is halfway to the target, and then one quarter and then
one eighth etc. I realize that eventually the arrow will hit the
target, BUT how does it actually get there? Why doesn't it take an
infinitely long amount of time? I know that F=ma and I've provided the
tools for the experiment. Is it that simply I am choosing to mentally
stop the arrow and observe a displacement measurement and therefore I
continuously wait until the arrow reaches it's next 1/x^2 interval?
The arrow does not care about my measurement. But why do I care? If I
care it will take forever for the arrow to reach the target. If I care
enough, the arrow will never reach the target. Am I in the wrong
newsgroup?
nearly insane with this one,
JK
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Space time question? |
05 Apr 2006 01:29:26 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Suppose you shoot an arrow at a certain distance from a target. At one
point the arrow is halfway to the target, and then one quarter and then
one eighth etc. I realize that eventually the arrow will hit the
target, BUT how does it actually get there? Why doesn't it take an
infinitely long amount of time?
Because to first order the time it takes is distance/velocity.
Newton's Laws of Motion
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/NewtonsLaws.html
Zeno's Paradoxes
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ZenosParadoxes.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: At some point you can't measure the ever smaller distances... you just can't. |
11 Apr 2006 04:11:47 AM |
|
|
Hi JohanKristoff,
Although you can measure how long it takes to reach half the distance,
and maybe one quarter the distance... there's a limit to your precision.
At some point you can't measure the ever smaller distances... you just can't.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Space time question? |
05 Apr 2006 01:30:17 PM |
|
|
On 5 Apr 2006 11:10:32 -0700, wrote:
Suppose you shoot an arrow at a certain distance from a target. At one
point the arrow is halfway to the target, and then one quarter and then
one eighth etc. I realize that eventually the arrow will hit the
target, BUT how does it actually get there? Why doesn't it take an
infinitely long amount of time? I know that F=ma and I've provided the
tools for the experiment. Is it that simply I am choosing to mentally
stop the arrow and observe a displacement measurement and therefore I
continuously wait until the arrow reaches it's next 1/x^2 interval?
The arrow does not care about my measurement. But why do I care? If I
care it will take forever for the arrow to reach the target. If I care
enough, the arrow will never reach the target. Am I in the wrong
newsgroup?
nearly insane with this one,
JK
The answer is simple. Nature is discrete and continuity is
crackpottery. The arrow's movement is a finite series of minute
quantum jumps. But don't tell that to boneheaded relativists. They're
liable to have an apoplectic fit. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "upChuckie" |
|
| Title: Re: Space time question? |
05 Apr 2006 01:38:06 PM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gv283250i22h39ponfo74gp44ok54taetb@4ax.com...
On 5 Apr 2006 11:10:32 -0700, wrote:
Suppose you shoot an arrow at a certain distance from a target. At one
point the arrow is halfway to the target, and then one quarter and then
one eighth etc. I realize that eventually the arrow will hit the
target, BUT how does it actually get there? Why doesn't it take an
infinitely long amount of time? I know that F=ma and I've provided the
tools for the experiment. Is it that simply I am choosing to mentally
stop the arrow and observe a displacement measurement and therefore I
continuously wait until the arrow reaches it's next 1/x^2 interval?
The arrow does not care about my measurement. But why do I care? If I
care it will take forever for the arrow to reach the target. If I care
enough, the arrow will never reach the target. Am I in the wrong
newsgroup?
nearly insane with this one,
JK
The answer is simple. Nature is discrete and continuity is
crackpottery.
Wrong. It is just the opposite. "Discrete" was invented by Man to
understand Nature.
Nature is continuous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Space time question? |
05 Apr 2006 08:07:04 PM |
|
|
"upChuckie" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:44340e56$0$16372$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gv283250i22h39ponfo74gp44ok54taetb@4ax.com...
Nature is discrete and continuity is crackpottery.
[upC]
Wrong. It is just the opposite. "Discrete" was invented by Man to understand
Nature. Nature is continuous.
[hanson]
Well, yes, but if your Chuckie nature is continuous then there
would be no visible nor discernable up- nor down Chuckie..
Chuckie would only be an indistinguishable part of a cosmic goo...
.... who the moment he would be cut out of his nature, as an
individual part, would have committed the cardinal sin against
his nature, by having made himself and nature discrete... for the
very first time... Welcome to the world, East of Eden, Chuckie....
Thanks for the laughs.... ahahaha... ahaha... ahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Space time question? |
06 Apr 2006 09:03:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 01:07:04 GMT, "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote:
"upChuckie" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:44340e56$0$16372$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gv283250i22h39ponfo74gp44ok54taetb@4ax.com...
Nature is discrete and continuity is crackpottery.
[upC]
Wrong. It is just the opposite. "Discrete" was invented by Man to understand
Nature. Nature is continuous.
[hanson]
Well, yes, but if your Chuckie nature is continuous then there
would be no visible nor discernable up- nor down Chuckie..
Chuckie would only be an indistinguishable part of a cosmic goo...
... who the moment he would be cut out of his nature, as an
individual part, would have committed the cardinal sin against
his nature, by having made himself and nature discrete... for the
very first time... Welcome to the world, East of Eden, Chuckie....
Thanks for the laughs.... ahahaha... ahaha... ahahanson
ahahaha... This is beautiful, Hanson. One for my private collection.
ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Space time question? |
05 Apr 2006 01:43:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 13:38:06 -0500, "upChuckie" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
[]
The answer is simple. Nature is discrete and continuity is
crackpottery.
Wrong. It is just the opposite. "Discrete" was invented by Man to
understand Nature.
Nature is continuous.
Your momma. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "platopes" |
|
| Title: Re: Space time question? |
05 Apr 2006 10:18:48 PM |
|
|
upChuckie wrote:
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gv283250i22h39ponfo74gp44ok54taetb@4ax.com...
|The answer is simple. Nature is discrete and continuity is
| crackpottery.
| Wrong. It is just the opposite. "Discrete" was invented by Man to
| understand Nature.
| Nature is continuous.
It's just *gotta* be both. It's just **Gotta**!!
p
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Space time question? |
05 Apr 2006 04:06:03 PM |
|
|
This is one of Zeno's paradoxes (see the links that Sam gave you).
You can break the flight up into an infinite number of segments, but
the sum of the durations of those segments is independent of your
mental analysis of the situation.
1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + ...
if you carry the summation out to an infinite number of terms.
The summation is somewhat less if you quit early.
Is there something you don't understand about this?
Don't feel bad - this conundrum has caused a lot of confusion since
Zeno developed it when Socrates was a lad (his Achilles paradox).
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_of_Elea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides_%28dialogue%29
The development of calculus and the concepts of limits and continuity
resolved this. Mostly those who still have problems with it are modern
'philosophers' who have skipped the introductory classes on the
mathematical roots of philosophy.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
