It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Saurus
In physics, motion is usually defined as a continuous change in the position of a body relative to a reference point, as measured by a particular observer in a particular frame of reference.
It mentions nothing of time. (Perhaps the word "continuous" might suggest 'time', but I don't feel that it is necessarily so...)
I think I would have to agree that motion=time seeing as that the motion of objects and light can change, affect, and stop time
Originally posted by userfame
So my point is; how could you calculate speed (movement) without having time ?
The answer is: you wouldn't have speed (movement), therefor it won't move.
And by the way: yes, every movement has its own speed and time elaps.
[edit on 28-10-2007 by userfame]
I Don't want to say this naive and that im the only one right here, maybe i got it wrong but listen to this: Every moving object has its own speed, and to calculate the speed you need bothe an object and time (taken at its base). So my point is; how could you calculate speed (movement) without having time ?
The answer is: you wouldn't have speed (movement), therefor it won't move.
And by the way: yes, every movement has its own speed and time elaps.
Originally posted by Johnmike
So how do you prove that time is motion?
Originally posted by lonemaverick
Zeno's paradox only works if there is no fundamental unit of time or space, ie, a unit so small that anything smaller is nothing. And since time is basically continuous, that means there has to be a fundamental unit of length. And since it can't be divided, the arrow crosses that distance in however much time is remaining, and you just got shot. Sorry to burst the logic field protecting you. Have a nice day