Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / February 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

"The Paradox of Zeno"

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Yek - 23 Feb 2007 14:30 GMT
"The Paradox of Zeno"

    The Paradox of Zeno is 2000 years old and its apparent ability to prove
that all motion is impossible was not resolved until the mathematical
techniques of Calculus became available, even though that technique is not
required. One form of the paradox describes the flight of an arrow which has
been shot at a target. The arrow is shot at a constant velocity, V, to a
target at a distance, L, and the time of flight is divided into intervals.
In the first interval, the arrow covers half of the distance to the target
and, in each succeeding interval of time, it covers half of the remaining
distance. Under the line of reasoning presented, the arrow never reaches the
target because, after each successive interval of time, one half of the
distance to the target that existed at the beginning of the interval
remains.

    The author finds it incredible that this paradox has been taken
seriously by intelligent men for over two millennia and has not been
recognized as a form of trickery. If one accepts that in each successive
interval of time the arrow traveled half of the remaining distance to the
target, he must also accept that each of those successive intervals of time
is half of the duration of the interval which preceded it. As a result,
under the Paradox of Zeno, not only does the arrow never reach the target,
the elapsed time of its flight never reaches the time, T, when the arrow
would reach the target.

    There is no paradox in the Paradox of the Zeno. As long as one allows a
cheap trick to fool him into considering only those events which occur prior
to the arrival of the arrow at the target, he most certainly will believe
that the arrow never reaches the target. The reality is that THE PASSAGE OF
TIME DOES NOT SLOW AS THE ARROW APPROACHES THE TARGET AND THE ARROW REACHES
THE TARGET WHEN IT SHOULD.

    To find the Paradox of Zeno be seriously considered as a topic which
requires a level of mathematics beyond simple arithmetic for its resolution
should lead a reasonable man to have serious doubts as to the mental
capacity of the individuals who are engaged in the teaching process.

    The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm 
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

    All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

    Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

    E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

    The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
Edward Green - 23 Feb 2007 15:12 GMT
>      The author finds it incredible that this paradox has been taken
> seriously by intelligent men for over two millennia and has not been
> recognized as a form of trickery.

How seriously it was taken but what number of intelligent humans is
not clear.  As to why some interest in it has persisted, we always
have mathematicians. ;-)

> If one accepts that in each successive
> interval of time the arrow traveled half of the remaining distance to the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>      There is no paradox in the Paradox of the Zeno.

Well, that is true.  It's still of some use, also.  It's frequently
trotted out in the discussion of Black Holes; what is missing, in my
view, is some awareness of the reversed Zeno's paradox.  In the
forward version of the paradox the arrow reaches the target, but
appears not to, based on (in modern language) an unfortuante choice of
coordinate system.  In the reversed paradox, the arrow _never_ reaches
to the target, but appears to, again based on an unfortunate choice of
coordinate system.

There is such a symmetry between the two cases that to mention one
without showing some awareness of the other is a symptom of reliance
on received tradition, and not on one's own reason.
Jeff…Relf - 28 Feb 2007 04:55 GMT
Hi  Mr. DIALUPUSA.NET,  The model employed in " The Paradox of Zeno "
can't be used to model an arrow hitting its target.
B.F.D., pick another model.

Quoting from my website, " www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/ ":

 Based on the desired result and " givens ",
 scientists chose the best model(s)... be it Quantum Mechanics,
 thermodynamics, special relativity, general relativity or a mix.

 Like thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle
 are about temperature:

   An ideal laser is perfectly coherent, at absolute zero.
   ( But the energy of the wave itself is the proper temperature )

   The more coherent your source is
   ( e.g. a laser, Cooper pairs, etc. ):

   1. The less you can know ( in theory and/or practice )
      which slit the particle passed though.
     
   2. The more you know, a priori, the momentum, the frequency
      and the integrity of the interference pattern.

 General Relativity can model the field of a massive object
 only because its energy is so very predictable.
 " Static 4-D spacetime " ( i.e. GR's gravitational field )
 equals, " 8 * pi * G * T_αβ / c^4 ".
 ( A function of density and pressure )

 The metric and the light cone can be " givens ", static.

 Geodesics inside the cone are " Timelike ",
 geodesics on the surface of the cone are lightlike,
 the rest are spacelike.

 If you assume the -+++ signature
 ( i.e. imaginary time, orthogonal to " length " )
 timelike geodesics are negative.
Eric Gisse - 28 Feb 2007 05:14 GMT
On Feb 27, 7:55 pm, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
[snip garbage]

No, sh.t for brains, nothing you wrote accurately represents
relativity, quantum mechanics, or thermodynamics. Try not to speculate
about subjects that are beyond you, dropout.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.