[Tina]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Hi Tina; [font=Verdana] I find your rational thinking quite refreshing Tina.

I don't think any one has ever called me a rational thinker before - the most common appelations I receive are "lunatic, insane and I don't know what I'm talking about". Your comment simply surprised me!

But back on the topic - something is fundamentally wrong with our understanding of motion - I can't identify it yet - but .......

Tina

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Tina I don't think any one has ever called me a rational thinker before - the most common appelations I receive are "lunatic, insane and I don't know what I'm talking about". Your comment simply surprised me! But back on the topic - something is fundamentally wrong with our understanding of motion - I can't identify it yet - but ....... Tina

Just to make you feel better Tina, I concur with the others!

And I don't believe David knows what he's talkin about!

And lastly, the flaw of understanding is simply measure!

=
MJA

[Tina]

Originally Posted by MJA Just to make you feel better Tina, I concur with the others! And I don't believe David knows what he's talkin about! And lastly, the flaw of understanding is simply measure! = MJA

Thanks MJA - maybe David was a bit premature in his opinion - but then when he compares me with you prehaps I do appear rational!!!

Now do I dare ask what is the flaw regarding measurement? Remember stay on topic.

[Euclid]

You might want to take a look at what Joseph Mazur's latest book has to say about this -- The Motion Paradox. It is a fascinating book that starts with Zeno and ends with string theory

[dleviwing]

Greg;
Even recorded information requires an interpreter or observer; otherwise it is just variant motion of matter. I think Tina’s answer was quite accurate.

Tina;
Mikey (mja) reminds me of a few of my children when they were teenagers. When they became adults, they were surprised at how much their father had learned in only a few years. I see you still have that 60’s rebel heart; me too!

MJA;
GET BACK IN YOUR PLAYPEN AND STOP BOTHERING THE ADAULTS.

Euclid;
Be careful of the academic brain washing. There are NO PARADOXES IN NATURE; only in man’s interpretations of it. Zeno’s view of motion being an illusion is just as silly as George Berkeley’s views that life is an illusion. The reading makes for great brain exercises though.

[N0B0DY]

How would one go about discerning that there are no paradoxes in nature, other than through intepreting nature as having none?

In that respect, Dave, it seems to be a two-way street.

Also, I don't think that Zeno necessarily advocated absolute motionlessness, but relative motionlessness based on infinity and/or eternity. The proof of this would be the fact that the tortoise and Achilles are implied to be moving.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY How would one go about discerning that there are no paradoxes in nature, other than through intepreting nature as having none?

Hmmmm... I think your question is the wrong way round Nobody. How would nature create a paradox, she would have to break her own laws?

I think the default for your question should be:
How would one go about discerning that there are paradoxes in nature, other than through intepreting nature as having some?

cool bananas ... greg

[Fluent Piffle]

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle I do not know what you infer as 'void', which is why I ask. Do you have a scientific link you could refer me to? Ok. As it is only un-real motion -the 'concept' thereof- which does not move, how about the REALITY of 'time'? According to your quote above, "the reference to measure time" is the concept, while the "bodies in motion" would be the physical Reality? - So the Reality would be the Motion, and the method of description would be the concept of 'time'.

Perhaps our old friend Albert can help us out then...

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter."
(Albert Einstein)


pif.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle Perhaps our old friend Albert can help us out then... "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter."(Albert Einstein)

FP;
Two out of three an't bad. Time has no meaning to a universe without the creature that thinks; unless you believe a clock is time. Don't quote Albert to me unless you know how to correct his mistakes.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY How would one go about discerning that there are no paradoxes in nature, other than through intepreting nature as having none?

Good point Nobody; but do you really believe there ARE paradoxes in nature? If so, show me one. I’m not the one making the claim so I’m not the one who needs to provide the proof. That’s like saying there is a god and asking someone to prove you wrong. I don’t debate nonsense even when it comes from educated sources. Greg is quite correct!

[Tina]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Greg; ....I think Tina’s answer was quite accurate. Tina; Mikey (mja) reminds me of a few of my children when they were teenagers. When they became adults, they were surprised at how much their father had learned in only a few years. I see you still have that 60’s rebel heart; me too! MJA; GET BACK IN YOUR PLAYPEN AND STOP BOTHERING THE ADAULTS. Euclid; Be careful of the academic brain washing. There are NO PARADOXES IN NATURE; only in man’s interpretations of it. Zeno’s view of motion being an illusion is just as silly as George Berkeley’s views that life is an illusion. The reading makes for great brain exercises though.

Never mind the 60's - as soon as I popped into the world I was kicking and screaming!

What is ADAULT? How do we become ADAULTS? Are you an ADAULT? Why are you saying paradoxical things?