If the laws of physics were true...

[homsarrunner3]

If the laws of physics were true, nothing would be able to move. No, seriously, check this out...

One of the laws of physics says that "To get anywhere, an object must first go halfway"

Say a ruler is 10 cm. long. half of that would get you to 5 cm. then you go the rest of the way, right?
Wrong, to get to the end, you have to go halfway of THAT now. So now you're at 7.5 inches. Then half of that... and it goes on and on, with the place you end up being a shorter distance away from where you started.
AS LONG AS THIS CONTINUES, YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO REACH THE END OF THE RULER.
This proves that the laws of physics are a crock and we break them every day
THE END.

[Drakim]

No, it just means you found Zeno's paradoxes and now you are feeling very clever.

[homsarrunner3]

At 1/8/11 08:57 AM, Drakim wrote: No, it just means you found Zeno's paradoxes and now you are feeling very clever.

I've never seen that in my life.

[Ravariel]

Max Planck would like to say "hi." Though Archimedes and Newton have mathematical answers for the paradox, the fact that there is a minimum distance that something can travel pretty much makes the paradox moot.

[lapis]

At 1/8/11 09:51 AM, Ravariel wrote: the fact that there is a minimum distance that something can travel pretty much makes the paradox moot.

I don't think it is claimed that there exist no distances smaller than one Planck length, just that due to the uncertainty principle it doesn't make sense for us to consider those distances.

[Camarohusky]

I don't care for that theory. You know one thing that that theory does not assume? That we experience time as a constant. When time is constant, the splitting of hairs over nanoseconds and billionths of an inch is nothing more than philosophical mindplay.

Take your 10cm ruler. I took a 60cm step, oh wait, I just passed half, then all, then more.

That theory is only useful if you're looknig to achieve Nirvana. If you're not Buddhist, welcome to real life.

[Ravariel]

At 1/8/11 10:08 AM, lapis wrote:

At 1/8/11 09:51 AM, Ravariel wrote: the fact that there is a minimum distance that something can travel pretty much makes the paradox moot.

I don't think it is claimed that there exist no distances smaller than one Planck length, just that due to the uncertainty principle it doesn't make sense for us to consider those distances.

Well, the line between the two is a fine and fuzzy one, but yes, in technicality, the Planck length is the smallest measurable length that has any meaning.

[morefngdbs]

At 1/8/11 11:28 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 1/8/11 10:08 AM, lapis wrote:

At 1/8/11 09:51 AM, Ravariel wrote: the fact that there is a minimum distance that something can travel pretty much makes the paradox moot.

I don't think it is claimed that there exist no distances smaller than one Planck length, just that due to the uncertainty principle it doesn't make sense for us to consider those distances.

;;;
So is this the point where someone comes out & says "but I really only want to travel half a planck length "
I know L A M E !

Well, the line between the two is a fine and fuzzy one, but yes, in technicality, the Planck length is the smallest measurable length that has any meaning.

[Ericho]

I'm not sure about the laws of physics, but what I can remember is that every object has kinetic energy which is potential energy, so perhaps this is justified by the fact that energy can be a precursing thing. I probably have no idea what I'm talking about, but I can think of some better questions. Like how energy and mass is never created or destroyed, then what about when a person is born of when they die? That seems to be a deeper question.

[Bacchanalian]

At 1/8/11 12:32 PM, Ericho wrote: I'm not sure about the laws of physics, but what I can remember is that every object has kinetic energy which is potential energy

Kinetic and potential energy are different things.

so perhaps this is justified by the fact that energy can be a precursing thing.

Um. I woke up today, before I went and took a piss. Is waking up a 'precusring thing'?

Like how energy and mass is never created or destroyed, then what about when a person is born of when they die?

Actually it's matter, not mass, that's 'conserved,' and in what way do birth and death violate the conservation of energy?

[freddorfman]

You know I think there should be an IQ limit for people who try to make scientific statements. I literally Facepalm at that

[Bacchanalian]

At 1/8/11 01:52 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Actually it's matter, not mass

Whoops... brain fart! It's been a while since high school guys...

[SteveGuzzi]

At 1/8/11 11:05 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You know one thing that that theory does not assume? That we experience time as a constant.

but... we don't.

[therealsylvos]

At 1/8/11 09:51 AM, Ravariel wrote: Max Planck would like to say "hi." Though Archimedes and Newton have mathematical answers for the paradox, the fact that there is a minimum distance that something can travel pretty much makes the paradox moot.

Not quite, Gauss had a rather clever answer to the related Achilles and the tortoise summing the infinite series to one. but this is merely coincidental. the question isn't answered if you view it in terms of thirds instead of half's.

What you have realize that at its not a mathematical problem, or physics problem, but a philosophical one. So your answering the wrong question.

[lapis]

At 1/8/11 06:27 PM, therealsylvos wrote: but this is merely coincidental. the question isn't answered if you view it in terms of thirds instead of half's.

Erm, that does not make sense. Surely, it shouldn't matter to the argument whether your sum of halves sums to one, your sum of thirds sums to one half or your sum of fourths sums to a third. All that matters --- I guess --- is that you end up with a finite value.

[martiescageda]

Is this a forum of Science Politics...?

Well, our science is not exact just because we think so. History has shown us that what people saw as "The Truth" in some era was discovered to be wrong somewhere later.

I'm sure than in a hundred years people will look at us in history books and laugh at how ignorant we were.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/8/11 02:50 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: but... we don't.

Generally we do. It may vary slightly, but nowehere near the extent of this theory.

[therealsylvos]

At 1/8/11 06:45 PM, lapis wrote:

At 1/8/11 06:27 PM, therealsylvos wrote: but this is merely coincidental. the question isn't answered if you view it in terms of thirds instead of half's.

Erm, that does not make sense. Surely, it shouldn't matter to the argument whether your sum of halves sums to one, your sum of thirds sums to one half or your sum of fourths sums to a third. All that matters --- I guess --- is that you end up with a finite value.

yes it should.
Consider the nature of the paradox, If we get the infinite sum to = 1, like we do with 1/2+1/4+1/8..., we've in essence "crossed the finish line", but the in the 1/3 case we only get a sum of 1/2, meaning
Achilles only gets half the distance to the finish line.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/8/11 09:12 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Consider the nature of the paradox, If we get the infinite sum to = 1, like we do with 1/2+1/4+1/8..., we've in essence "crossed the finish line", but the in the 1/3 case we only get a sum of 1/2, meaning
Achilles only gets half the distance to the finish line.

This is true. Regardless of what fraction you take, the end is still the same. All you essentially are doing is changing rate in which the slope of the hyperbola changes. Regardless of what you multiply the hyperbola by, it will never reach the +N value.

This does not make the theory practical though...

[SteveGuzzi]

At 1/8/11 09:03 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/8/11 02:50 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: but... we don't.

Generally we do.

nahh not really.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/8/11 11:23 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: nahh not really.

To the point of being able to experience this theory in smaller segments than tenths of a second? Nope.

Relative to the extremes this theory requires, yes. You would consider a range of 1 million, fairly large alone, to be quite slim when framed in a world of billions or more.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 1/8/11 11:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote: To the point of being able to experience this theory in smaller segments than tenths of a second? Nope.

Relative to the extremes this theory requires, yes. You would consider a range of 1 million, fairly large alone, to be quite slim when framed in a world of billions or more.

i'm not defending the OP or suggesting the paradox actually proves what he claims it does... all i was responding to was you saying that we experience time as a constant, cuz... we don't. not only are there dozens of examples of situations where time doesn't feel constant, but then there's all the physics behind relativity with its 'curvature of spacetime' and that whole 'time dilation' effect going on. all i'm sayin is, neither our experience of time's flow nor its actual rate of passage are what i'd call "constant". besides all that, if you're sayin the OP is a silly goose for one reason or another then okay i concur

[lapis]

At 1/8/11 09:12 PM, therealsylvos wrote: yes it should.
Consider the nature of the paradox, If we get the infinite sum to = 1, like we do with 1/2+1/4+1/8..., we've in essence "crossed the finish line", but the in the 1/3 case we only get a sum of 1/2, meaning
Achilles only gets half the distance to the finish line.

First off, Achilles will never cross the finish line in this example, he can only get arbitrarily close to it. You're mistaking a limiting value for a value that can actually be attained. Second, it doesn't solve "the paradox", because Achilles would still not be able to cross two race tracks merged together, which I consider to be pretty paradoxal --- as in, in the real world I would expect him to be able to do that. The "paradox" is that an infinite number of points in space needs to be crossed in a finite amount of time. The solution to this paradox should and does not depend on my arbitrary choice of points.

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

No you just think that because a ruler can only measure to a substandard degree of accuracy, it must be a false measurement. Did you ever wonder why we round up to decimal places? That doesn't make physics 'wrong' if anything it makes it a more justifiable premises for us to base hypothesis on if it only declares anything to be 'true' to a particular 'degree of accuracy'. All you do is simply take the concept of irreducible, infinitely regressive 'standardised' measurement, and turn it into an argument on the whole 'I don't understand how X can be true so it must be false'.

So I might criticise;

A) You do not have the rational capacity to understand how these items might not be irreducibly complex (the smallest possible element of time as far as any hypothetical statement is concerned being a quark, or a 'Quanta' of energy).

B) An analogy to mathematics. What happens in the theoretical world (phenomenal world) does not directly correlate to what happens in the physical world (neuminal world). If we add up 2mm + 2mm theoretically we are left with a 4mm object. Physically however this is not the case. 2mm + 2mm, is equal to 4(+-0.5)mm, we must always allow for uncertainty in the physical world. Mathematics without accounting for any degree of accuracy is an ill premise for us to base our judgements on the physical world on. If we take a number '1', and say it depicts an object. We could share the number 1 an irreducible number of times, but the number 1 is merely theoretical.

It is not a scientific, or theoretical premise for us to base our knowledge of the real world on. So just because mathematics is irreducibly complex, does not make it a premise for us to elaborate that items in the real world are irreducibly complex. In fact we have found if you'll take Quantum Physics class, quite the contrary.

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

I guess if I wanted to be specific, I ought to say a Plank Length is the shortest distance that we have conceptualised that can be applied to the real world 'so far'. Merely because science is a hypothetical analysis of the real world does not diminish my second point.

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

The laws of physics are not normalitive laws, they are scientific descriptive laws which 'ought' not to be broken. We could misconsider them as normalitive laws simply because science is an artificially created hypothetical premise on which we draw conclusions from, but that does not specifically state that they cannot be broken (although it would be utterly irrational for them to be broken).

[ScytheCutter]

At 1/9/11 10:06 AM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: The laws of physics are not normalitive laws, they are scientific descriptive laws which 'ought' not to be broken.

Thus why we tend to ignore newtonian mechanics at near relativistic speeds.

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

At 1/9/11 11:43 AM, ScytheCutter wrote:

At 1/9/11 10:06 AM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: The laws of physics are not normalitive laws, they are scientific descriptive laws which 'ought' not to be broken.

Thus why we tend to ignore newtonian mechanics at near relativistic speeds.

Pretty much. We just ignore them because its false to apply them. Scientific laws are not universal.

If you are a rational human being you will be able to come to the conclusion; http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/50 0471

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

Link dud

• 
  Gravity's Just A Theory 2 by Oggy-cheese

  Click to view.

  Type

  Movie

  Rated

  Everyone

[MonkeyV]

Yeh okay if it takes me 10 seconds to walk ten meters, I will have to walk 5 meters first. Walking that 5 meters will take 5 seconds, but I need to walk 2.5 meters first. 2.5 meters takes 2.5 seconds... and so on. I don't see the paradox here. Anybody who buys into Zeno's Paradox is just having trouble wrapping their mind around the idea that an infinite amount of 'units' of time pass every second. After 10 seconds and 10 meters, I will have also traveled 5 meters, 5 seconds ago, and 2.5 meters, 7.5 seconds ago, and infinite other distances in infinite other amounts of time.
If I were traveling an infinite distance, then the Paradox would be true; it would take me an infinite amount of time. However, I am simply traveling an infinite amount infinitely small distances. This comes out to a finite distance, and therefore a finite amount of time. = no Paradox.