s this scientifically impossible?, it can “NEVER” hit the ground…can it?

Gilly said:
If you have one large breadcrumb and cut it in two, how many bread crumbs do you have?
Click to expand...

If you have a heap of sandwiches and take away a sandwich, do you still have a heap?

If you start with one sandwich, then add another sandwich, is it a heap? What if you add another, then another, then some more? Have you got a heap yet?
 
Last edited:
There is no penny.

Additionally it's a vagary of mathematics rather than an observation of actual physical interactions, even children know this.
 
Last edited:
Skyfall said:
Additionally it's a vagary of mathematics rather than an observation of actual physical interactions, even children know this.
Click to expand...

Quite. But the question is: how do we reconcile them? You can't just leave a counter-intuitive mathematical/philosophical postulate like that un-sussed.

A bit like the ontological argument: obviously invalid, but why?
 
Last edited:
its going to hit the ground when the distance from its centre to the ground is less then from its centre to its external extremity.

it doesn't need to be 0
 
So you've discovered Zeno's Paradox. Congratulations.

The point is each concurrent step takes less than half the previous step took. So you can complete an infinite number of those steps in finite time.
 
Yes I agree with Zeno's Paradox and most of the time his ideas are correct.
But sometimes 0,999999999 is 1 and also depending upon the earth gravitational pull, what falls down sometimes can escape time fluctuation depending on gradual molecular assistance from different elements including wave resistance, magnetic equilibrium and harmonic oscillation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom