I have been revisiting the pre-Socratics and have been pleasantly surprised at how 2,500-year-old ideas still have some resonance for me. In particular, Zeno's paradoxes of motion.
Here's a version that captures my query:
If you had an arrow sitting in front of you, motionless, and someone shot a second arrow past you, you could arrange it so that at some instant, the first and second arrows were in alignment and at that instant perfectly indistinguishable by observation. Yet the second arrow happily continues on toward it's target when time resumes.
So what property does the moving arrow have that the static arrow does not, and especially in that instant of time?
Since there are many well-trained (even if not degreed) physics afficionados on this forum, I'd like to know, not necessarily what the resolution to the original "paradox" is, but how someone with a better understanding of physics (and more schooling) than me views the situation - how do you think about it?
Here's a version that captures my query:
If you had an arrow sitting in front of you, motionless, and someone shot a second arrow past you, you could arrange it so that at some instant, the first and second arrows were in alignment and at that instant perfectly indistinguishable by observation. Yet the second arrow happily continues on toward it's target when time resumes.
So what property does the moving arrow have that the static arrow does not, and especially in that instant of time?
Since there are many well-trained (even if not degreed) physics afficionados on this forum, I'd like to know, not necessarily what the resolution to the original "paradox" is, but how someone with a better understanding of physics (and more schooling) than me views the situation - how do you think about it?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1RVuGvF
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire