2

# Are there gaps in time

Wed 2 Jun, 2004 12:13 pm
If an arrow is stationary at any instant in time? It must follow that it is stationary at every instant of time -- so when does it move?
• Topic Stats
• Top Replies
• Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,344 • Replies: 29
No top replies

rufio

1
Wed 2 Jun, 2004 12:28 pm
It's never stationary. Saying it is is a figure of speach that helps us understand physics formulas better.
0 Replies

carditel

1
Wed 2 Jun, 2004 12:37 pm
In an infinitely small moment it only occupies its own length therefore is staionary.
0 Replies

roger

1
Wed 2 Jun, 2004 12:44 pm
A moment can be infinitely small? Only if a moment is small enough that it cannot be further divided. so I doubt the arrow is stationary.
0 Replies

carditel

1
Wed 2 Jun, 2004 12:47 pm
Infinitely small means just that, it cannot be divided any more it is a single moment.
0 Replies

stuh505

1
Wed 2 Jun, 2004 04:56 pm
this reminds me of a proposition i heard once: if every time span can be divided in half, then there will always be infinite distance to travel for a moving object, so how can movement occur?

from a programming perspective, this causes a great deal of trouble when modelling things on a broad scale (such as bullets, or gravity)
0 Replies

JLNobody

1
Wed 2 Jun, 2004 05:39 pm
Stuh505, that's one of those logical models that has nothing to do with reality as experienced by humans. Remember the tortoise and the hare? The hare could never pass the tortoise because he could only halve the distance between himself and the tortoise ad infinitum, always remaining behind in some infinitely divisable quantum of space. But we know better, don't we?
0 Replies

joefromchicago

1
Wed 2 Jun, 2004 08:03 pm
carditel wrote:
Infinitely small means just that, it cannot be divided any more it is a single moment.

Your "infinitely small moment" is just as illusory as your immobile arrow. If any period of time can be divided, then there is no period of time that is indivisible. The infinitely small moment, then, can be divided into two or more infinitely smaller moments, and these divided still further, and so on ad infinitum.
0 Replies

joefromchicago

1
Wed 2 Jun, 2004 08:16 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Stuh505, that's one of those logical models that has nothing to do with reality as experienced by humans. Remember the tortoise and the hare? The hare could never pass the tortoise because he could only halve the distance between himself and the tortoise ad infinitum, always remaining behind in some infinitely divisable quantum of space. But we know better, don't we?

It's not the tortoise and the hare, JLN -- that's one of Aesop's fables. You're thinking of Achilles and the Tortoise. That, along with the "Arrow Paradox" mentioned by carditel, are two of Zeno's paradoxes.
0 Replies

JLNobody

1
Wed 2 Jun, 2004 08:19 pm
0 Replies

kuvasz

1
Wed 2 Jun, 2004 08:28 pm
depends. depends on if one considers time to be defined as quanta or wave.

if electromagnetic radiation is definable as both quanta and wave function, why not time as well?

when one looks electromagnetic radiation in one way it is a particle, in another, a wave function.

perhaps too this thing we refer to as time.
0 Replies

JLNobody

1
Wed 2 Jun, 2004 08:32 pm
Perhaps the best term is wavicle.
0 Replies

carditel

1
Thu 3 Jun, 2004 12:26 am
It is like a diver diving off a diving board at which moment of time does he leave the board? he is on the board i.e touching it, the next he has left the board ,so when does the moment of leaving occur?
0 Replies

joefromchicago

1
Thu 3 Jun, 2004 08:36 am
carditel wrote:
It is like a diver diving off a diving board at which moment of time does he leave the board? he is on the board i.e touching it, the next he has left the board ,so when does the moment of leaving occur?

The moment that he's no longer touching the board.
0 Replies

carditel

1
Thu 3 Jun, 2004 09:34 am
Then he has already left
0 Replies

carditel

1
Thu 3 Jun, 2004 09:34 am
Then he has already left
0 Replies

joefromchicago

1
Thu 3 Jun, 2004 10:15 am
carditel wrote:
Then he has already left

Then you are raising a mere definitional quibble.
0 Replies

JLNobody

1
Thu 3 Jun, 2004 12:04 pm
Does this have to do with Archimedes points in time? Or is that Achilles, Joe?
0 Replies

patiodog

1
Thu 3 Jun, 2004 12:32 pm
kuvasz wrote:
depends. depends on if one considers time to be defined as quanta or wave.

if electromagnetic radiation is definable as both quanta and wave function, why not time as well?

when one looks electromagnetic radiation in one way it is a particle, in another, a wave function.

perhaps too this thing we refer to as time.

is time really a thing? or is it just a notion we use to account for the fact that things appear to happen in a particular order, and not all at once?
0 Replies

carditel

1
Fri 4 Jun, 2004 09:48 am
Maybe time is a single unit, all time existing at the same time. we just move through it , time itself is stationary.
0 Replies

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King

1. Forums
2. » Are there gaps in time
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/13/2021 at 06:33:49