|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 7:50 pm
this is an easy one to answer. the fact of the matter is an arrow goes much faster than a man. its like catching up to a walking man by running to him. your going faster so you gain ground quicker. meaning in all... no an arrow cannot catch a man running in the same direction unless it is going at a speed some what 2 and 1/2 times the speed of the man. unfortunatly I must say you complicate things way to much
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:43 pm
Scorpo It is logically impossible for a running man to be hit with an arrow going in the same direction. In order for things to move, or even change, there must be a smallest increment of time. This increment would be dictated by the amount of time for the smallest thing possible to happen TO happen. Since nothing can move any more or any less than any other object in this increment of time, everything must therefore move at the same rate. And therefore, things travelling in the same direction must be travelling at precisely the same speed. But things don't work that way. It can be further construed from this that if things do not work in the way described above, there can be no movement, or time. And now, my brain hurts. According to this, all of existance must be the dream of some incomprehensibly complex being. A lot of thought has gone into this, through the ancient greek philosophers, to today. Until someone can come up with a better explanation for the existance of Time itself, it stands that there is, in fact, a God. There are two things wrong with this logic: 1) If there is a smallest increment of time, as you say, and that is the amount of time that it takes the smallest possible change to happen, this does not mean that everything changes at that rate. In that increment of time, some things change, while others do not. In larger increments of time, more things change. 2) You assume that if there is a smallest increment of time, everything would move the same distance in this amount of time. This is not true. Assume that a second is the smallest increment of time. In one second, say, a ant moves 3 cm. Just because that ant moved only 3 cm, something else, capable of most 4 cm in that one second. There is no reason that things should have to move the same distance in one increment of time. Why? Because things can change speed. Speed, after all, is measured in meters per second. Thus, time is only one variable, and one is obviously not dictated by the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:00 pm
Ohhhh i got it, or meaby not... I remember this thing i heard. Like if some one was on a plane going 800 miles per hour their whole life then they would live 3 seconds longer or somthing liek that. It had somthing to do with einstines theory or somthing. So if tiem an speed are directly related(both which are meauserments created by man) then meaby the arrow is traveling faster through time, or the man is traveling slower through time. Unless time is constant, which means speed is constant, which its not. But this is all based off of einstines theory or somthing liek that. Probly wrong, but i need the money biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:06 pm
Time is not an abstract measurement. Seconds are abstract measurements, minutes are abstract measurements, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:07 pm
Sheramaile Time is not an abstract measurement. Seconds are abstract measurements, minutes are abstract measurements, etc. Wait... If time is not minuets or based off of minuets and seconds than what is time and what does it do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:16 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TimeNote how it says that time as a measurement of linear actions has not been the general consensus since relativity was introduced. The easiest way that I've explained it to people is that you can liken time to the length of a table. The length can be abstractly measured by millimeters, just like time can be abstractly measured by seconds. Length is a feature or property of the table, and time is a feature of our universe. It is of course, much more complicated, but that's a simple description of the misconception that time is just something humans made up to place events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:07 pm
Why does everything have to move at the same rate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 10:28 am
because of the laws of physics, most notably inertia. but, i just thought of an answer... because everything is made up of particles, things move in the direction that the majority of particles is moving. the speed at which the object moves depends on the margin by which the majority rules. therefore, if 55 percent of the particles of the man are moving in that direction, then if the arrow has a greater majority, say, 75 percent, then it can catch up and hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 4:58 am
Scorpo A lot of thought has gone into this, through the ancient greek philosophers, to today. Until someone can come up with a better explanation for the existance of Time itself, it stands that there is, in fact, a God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:33 am
Holy s**t.
What was I thinking when I posted in this thread?
Calculus is the answer!
Take a small increment of time- let's call it dt.
Now, let's take a small distance that is travelled in that time: dx
dx/dt = first derivative, or velocity in this case. But dx/dt isn't a constant, it's variable.
If an arrow moves x meters in t seconds, then the function of displacement is x=t. The velocity is then dx/dt = 1 m/s. But if a man is moving, at say, only half that rate, then x = .5t, and dx/dt = .5 meters per second. In this case, the velocity is a constant. But it's not always true, for example, when x = t^2. But the point is, calculus explains this entire paradox pretty simply. My explanation is a bit lacking, but the Greeks didn't have calculus, so it makes sense that this paradox is a bit weird to modern thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
