Zeno Aristotle was Re: Who shaves the barber
in [Physics]
|
Prev: An ocean blanketed one-third of Mars about 3.5 billion years ago, a new study suggests
Next: Light cancel of energy never happens
From: rick_s on 19 Jun 2010 12:12 Three other paradoxes as given by Aristotle Paradox of Place: "� if everything that exists has a place, place too will have a place, and so on ad infinitum."[12] Place will always have a place in our hearts. Is there a place for our hearts? Yes. Is there a place for place in our hearts? yes. Is there a place for places which are in our hearts? Yes, our hearts. Your point is?
From: rick_s on 19 Jun 2010 12:54 Zeno's arrow (look it up if you don't know it) Photons bounce off the arrow at specific points giving you the illusion that the arrow is standing still when in fact it crosses all points between A and B because at a point, all points within A and B are touching and form a solid line easily traversible by the arrow.
From: rick_s on 19 Jun 2010 13:01 In article <O1dTn.30251$%u7.25828(a)newsfe14.iad>, me(a)my.com says... > > >Three other paradoxes as given by Aristotle > >Paradox of Place: > > "� if everything that exists has a place, place too will have a place, >and so on ad infinitum."[12] > >Place will always have a place in our hearts. > >Is there a place for our hearts? Yes. >Is there a place for place in our hearts? yes. > >Is there a place for places which are in our hearts? Yes, our hearts. Your >point is? > > Paradox of the Grain of Millet: "� there is no part of the millet that does not make a sound: for there is no reason why any such part should not in any length of time fail to move the air that the whole bushel moves in falling. In fact it does not of itself move even such a quantity of the air as it would move if this part were by itself: for no part even exists otherwise than potentially."[13] except for the old Dodge parts I have in the trunk. The Moving Rows: "The fourth argument is that concerning the two rows of bodies, each row being composed of an equal number of bodies of equal size, passing each other on a race-course as they proceed with equal velocity in opposite directions, the one row originally occupying the space between the goal and the middle point of the course and the other that between the middle point and the starting-post. This...involves the conclusion that half a given time is equal to double that time."[14] (you can do that one, I have the solution written down and hidden in my secret happy place only to be opened after you give your solution) Zeno's arrow...(you can look it up if you don't know it) Have you ever watched a video frame by frame? Onl;y the key frames are still frames but really now we know that when you take a picture of an arrow in flight, or observe it with your eyes, you are actually observing reflected light which has bounced off the object, as opposed to the Aristotelian view (I think) that rays shoot out of our eyes. At any rate what you are seeing are the photons bouncing off the object and we know the object is really moving and not in one place because of the doppler shift. To get from A to B it must of course cross all points between A and B and it does so with ease because at a point, the points are so close together, that you can consider them to be a solid line. This idea that if you divide a line into points the arrow could never traverse an infinity of points is obviously incorrect. What makes someone think it takes an infinite amount of time, when the arrow is clearly doing it.
From: rick_s on 19 Jun 2010 13:17 In article <CFdTn.2947$kn1.1018(a)newsfe16.iad>, me(a)my.com says... > > >Zeno's arrow (look it up if you don't know it) > >Photons bounce off the arrow at specific points giving you the illusion that >the arrow is standing still when in fact it crosses all points between A and >B because at a point, all points within A and B are touching and form a solid >line easily traversible by the arrow. > Upon contacting the moving arrow, a photon will increase in energy and that will be detectable as a doppler shift, that is how radar guns work. http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/5-6/K.pdf
From: rick_s on 19 Jun 2010 13:32
The set of all sets exists in our imagination. A set containing exactly the sets that are not members of themselves. The set class. And in this class of objects we want only those sets which are not a member of themselves. Typical eroneous wording. We have to use our imagination to conceive of a set of all sets, and we can imagine also, that the set which contains all sets not a member of themselves is like the native indian barber who only shaves himself every other day. When you are talking about the contents of that set, you are not talking about the box just the box set. That is to say that these are two different gramatical uses of the same word, one which is the object and one which is the subject. Hence the set itself is not in the same class you are being too general. You are saying set box container but it is just the failings of the language you are using that does not reflect the different uses of the term. Word mumbly jumbly nonsense using the same word to describe two different things entirely, the collection, and the container. A collection is not a container ipso facto you are just using improper descriptive terms and calling your linguistic failings a paradox. |