tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post5979527005233122936..comments2024-03-24T09:28:42.755+01:00Comments on CJ on Mathematics and Science: New View of Motion under Gravitation without Classical Mysteries Claes Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-8159305063089117592014-07-06T23:00:26.693+02:002014-07-06T23:00:26.693+02:00Yes, the arrow reaches its destination and that is...Yes, the arrow reaches its destination and that is not a triviality as you seem to think.<br />That you so quickly reach the bottom line of final word indicates that you are locked into a rest position without possibility of motion. Claes Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-81449587859994652602014-07-06T22:21:32.218+02:002014-07-06T22:21:32.218+02:00Nonsense, the argument is crystal clear. But you ...Nonsense, the argument is crystal clear. But you know as well as I do that the arrow reaches its destination, and therefore that Zeno's argument is in error. I have stated my scientific opinion, that the error obviously lies in a clearly false assumption, and you have responded with empty denial--why did you do that? I am here to inform those who will listen, not to argue fruitlessly with dogmatic beliefs. I reject Zeno, scientifically, on the clear grounds I have given above, and I think Zeno was a fool for not identifying the obviously faulty assumption as faulty--his foolishness continues with you and many others to this day, and I find that abhorrent. And that is my final word on this subject here.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-32584925512614215552014-07-06T07:18:35.601+02:002014-07-06T07:18:35.601+02:00No, Zeno was not a fool, and if you think he was t...No, Zeno was not a fool, and if you think he was then you have not understood his argument, like many physicists teaching the subject.Claes Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-19096257679257342092014-07-05T20:59:31.307+02:002014-07-05T20:59:31.307+02:00The obvious reply from me is that a moving object ...The obvious reply from me is that a moving object IS moving, at every "instant" (however such an instant is defined)--why constrain your thinking with such idiocy as "no distance is traveled during any instant"?--the object travels a distance in proportion to the size of the "instant" being considered, that is the obvious PHYSICAL statement of fact, and the whole idea of a paradox is simply a confusion of words, without understanding, from the perverse assumption of "no motion during an instant". Zeno was a fool, and any "physicist" (or "mathematician") who feels confused by his "paradox" should not be teaching the subject.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.com