What is this? An argument? By the way, do you have a position at any given moment?Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:50 pmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RApvaQ0uGTwcommonsense wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:42 pmOh noooooooooooo, bahman. Just when you seemed to make sense!bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:35 pm But there is a problem in the second case. The moving object ceases to exist at one point and begins to exist at the immediate point at now. This means that the object exists and exists not at the same position at now. This problem is due to the fact that the number of immediate points is unbound, even bigger than infinity. There is no problem in the first case.
Continuous motion possible or impossible
Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible
Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible
If you are asking, "Can you become taller without losing shortness?" Then,bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pmCan you become tall without losing to being short?Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:26 amYou keep RE-REPEATING more or less the EXACT SAME things. However, I am NOT asking you to RE-REPEAT ANY thing AT ALL, and what I am ACTUALLY asking you is for CLARIFICATION.
Just LOOK AT the ACTUAL WORDS in the questions I pose, to you, for CLARIFICATION, and just answer those words alone, PLEASE.
1. You do NOT YET KNOW what the 'you' is, EXACTLY.
2. There is NO 'tall' NOR 'short' here.
3. As the human body gets 'taller' (or 'longer') the 'shortness' gets less.
What?
This is a GREAT example of how these adult human beings would say just about ANY thing to 'try to' "justify" their already obtained and very strongly held onto BELIEFS.
What does an 'object' "being in first place" even actually mean or refer to, EXACTLY?
How can an 'object' "be in second place"?
WHY can an 'object' "not be in second place without being in the first place"?
Was EVERY 'object', in the Universe, "in first place"?
And, what is "first place" and "second place" in reference to, EXACTLY?
Well where the energy comes from, here, is the EXACT SAME place ALL energy comes from.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pmNo.
I mean the energy that is needed to bring about the new object at the new position.
I do NOT do 'theory'.
I much prefer to just LOOK AT what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, instead.
No you are not. But, what you are saying is just as Wrong and False as "the sun revolves around the earth". As has ALREADY been PROVED True.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pmI am not saying that the sun moves around the earth.Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am What you have said here is equivalent to saying, "The sun revolves around the earth", and, "this is our best understanding of motion", therefore, this implies, this is THEE ACTUAL best understanding. Which is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, to those who ACTUALLY KNOW better. Just like 'your' best understanding is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect to those of 'us' who ACTUALLY KNOW better.
WHY do you NOT answer CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you?
What are you AFRAID of, EXACTLY?
ANY thing that creates some thing.
Yes there is. As I have ALREADY POINTED OUT and SHOWN.
LOL
LOL
LOL
This is WHERE you FAIL, completely.
So, to you, already existing particles have NOT even been created yet.
This is EXACTLY WHY what you are saying here is a complete CONTRADICTION, and the most laughable part of this is that you are COMPLETELY BLINDED to all of this by your own BELIEFS, which are OBVIOUSLY VERY DISTORTED, Wrong, False, AND Incorrect.
What, EXACTLY, makes, let us say, ' the distance between the two events of "yesterday" and "tomorrow" ', a discrete process? The distance is OBVIOUSLY NOT zero, correct?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pmWell, I should have say that if the distance between two events is not zero then we are dealing with a discrete process.Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 amNO I AM NOT.
If the distance between "two events" is not zero, then that just MEANS there is an ACTUAL 'distance', and that would be what I was talking about, that is; if that is what I was talking about.
But what can be CLEARLY SEEN, and PROVED True, is that I was NOT talking about ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL. And, All I did here was just ask you a CLARIFYING QUESTION, ONLY.
LOL Okay. Do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for this CLAIM of yours?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pmOk, but that is wrong.Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 amNO. NOT AT ALL.
And, this would be ANOTHER EXAMPLE of ANOTHER one of the completely and utterly ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, and Wrong ASSUMPTIONS, which you continually make here.
Oh, and by the way, I am claiming what I have ALREADY CLAIMED. That is; There IS motion, and that 'it' IS, ALWAYS, continuous.
If yes, then what is 'it', EXACTLY?
Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible
Just saying something occurs is NOT explaining HOW nor WHY 'it' occurs.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:23 pmContinuous motion as I explained requires that a moving object exists and exists not at now! This is impossible.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:30 amIf there is any space between immediate points in a so-called continuous entity, it is not continuous and bears no relevance to the possibility or the impossibility of continuous motion.
But if there is no space between immediate points in a continuous entity, it is truly continuous but there is no room for discreteness between the continuous points and accordingly no possibility of discreteness anywhere in a continuous motion.
Continuous motion is possible. Discrete motion is impossible.
QED
And, just saying or claiming that a moving object exists and exists not at now does NOT mean that this ACTUALLY occurs AT ALL.
As I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVEN, this is just what you BELIEVE is true but which you ACTUALLY have absolutely NO proof of AT ALL.
Or, if you ACTUALLY do have proof for this claim of yours here, then you have CERTAINLY NOT produced 'it' for us to have a LOOK AT 'it'. Even though I have been continually asking you for 'it'.
Does ANY one in this forum accept and agree that "a moving object exists and exists NOT at now"?
If yes, then what PROOF do you have for this?
If you have NO proof, then WHY do you ACCEPT and AGREE WITH this claim?
Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible
If this, now, "space" "between discrete motion" can be so small that 'it' can NOT be measured, then HOW do you "KNOW" that 'it' exists?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:29 pmNo, the space between discrete motion can be so small that it cannot be measured simply.Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:25 amTo me,
'motion' is; the action or process of moving or being moved and/or the phenomenon in which an object changes its position. And,
'continuous' is; forming an unbroken whole; without interruption.
So, I define 'continuous motion' as; the process of forming an unbroken whole, through movement, without interruption.
And my argument for 'continuous motion', in regards to the Universe, Itself, or Reality, is;
What thee Universe is ACTUALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY made up of and how thee Universe ACTUALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY WORKS. Or, in other words,
If the Universe began, or will end, or if there is an interrupted movement of the Universe, Itself, then there is NOT 'continuous motion'.
There is absolutely NO proof NOR even ANY indication that there was a beginning to EVERY thing, and, from my perspective, at the moment of NOW EVERY thing is continually moving, and until ACTUAL PROOF of some thing being interrupted in movement or that thee Universe/Everything did ACTUALLY begin, or will end, then the Fact that things are 'continuously moving' NOW MEANS that they ALWAYS WILL.
Therefore, until SOME one PROVIDES ACTUAL PROOF where movement is ACTUALLY broken or interrupted, then what I have observed remains THE SAME. That is; If there is just one thing that is ACTUALLY interrupted in movement, and this can be SHOWN, then 'continuous movement' for ALL does NOT exist and thus IS IMPOSSIBLE.
And, WHY, EXACTLY, are you saying and claiming that 'it' does exist?
So, because the brain within that head CHEATS 'you' when it is watching films, that brain then TELLS (cheats) you into BELIEVING that there is separation in the motion of thee Universe, Itself.
Also, is it possible that the brain within that head is CHEATING you to BELIEVE things, which ACTUALLY are NOT true, and then TRICKS you into using examples of how films are somehow separated into, who knows how many, MANY different segments.
'you', "bahman", is one of the most DISILLUSIONED ones in this forum.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:29 pmThere is motion. Continuous motion is impossible as it is illustrated in OP. Therefore, the motion is discrete as the only alternative which is left.Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:37 amIf ANY one wants to SUGGEST that "Reality COULD BE discrete", then just SHOW HOW Reality COULD BE discrete. You have NOT YET done this "bahman".
And, if ANY one wants to CLAIM that "Reality IS discrete", then just PROVE this.
How much more SIMPLER could this get?
This, so-called, "argument" of yours here, in the opening post, is just an example of what BELIEVE is true, but which you do NOT have ANY ACTUAL evidence, let alone proof, for. So, what you do is just make up just about absolutely ANY thing, in the hope that that will back up and support your BELIEFS. But, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, what you said in the opening post, which was;
To move, it must not be at now at the current location and then be at the next instance at another point. But something cannot be and not be at the same instance, now (it exists at now and must not exist in order to move). Therefore, continuous motion is impossible. is ONLY your DISTORTED BELIEFS, alone.
Your first sentence is just nonsensical AND illogical. Unless, OF COURSE, you can and WILL make it make sense and logical.
Let us say that the 'it' word, in your sentence, refers to 'a ball', for example,. Now, 'To move, a ball, MUST NOT be at 'now', at the ball's current location, and then, be at the 'next instance' at another point'.
WHY do you make this CLAIM here?
And, did you get to the, so-called, "next instance", through a continuous process or did you just JUMP to the "next instance"?
By the way, the reason WHY you have such a DISTORTED BELIEF can be CLEARLY SEEN in your opening post, in this thread.
Your second sentence has just so MANY faults, flaws, and CONTRADICTIONS I am not even going to bother exposing them ALL. Or, maybe it is the way you LOOK AT and SEE what 'now' means or refers to, EXACTLY, WHY you have this view and BELIEF that you have here?
Your "conclusion' is just your BELIEF, which you had PRIOR anyway to when you came up with the first two sentences. Your first two sentences, again, is just you 'trying to' find absolutely ANY thing to help in supporting and backing up your ALREADY OBTAINED BELIEF.
Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible
OF COURSE that is a CLAIM, and NOT thee PROOF.
The CLAIM is; thee PROOF is in those things, which I have said and CLAIMED it was.
When people are READY TO, and have ENOUGH INTEREST, then they will FIND and SEE thee PROOF, which I am talking about here.
How much distance there is between when this is being written, and, when people are READY TO, and have become INTERESTED ENOUGH, is a whole other matter.
But if and when ANY one is INTERESTED ENOUGH, then I can SHOW them how they can FIND and SEE thee PROOF, "themselves".
Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible
You are DONE because you can NOT counter NOR refute ANY thing in what I have said here.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:31 pmI am done with you.Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:51 amBut I think you will find that there is NOT a thing that DISAGREES with YOUR version of 'motion' and how 'that version' cannot be continuous, anyway.
Your, so-called, "argument" only proves some thing that could NOT be disproved anyway. So, "your argument" is NOT REALLY worth talking about NOR sharing.
Also, the thing about "your argument" is that it does NOT even address what most adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, would consider what 'continuous motion' even means or refers to anyway.
Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible
You can call 'it' an "argument" if you like. But this still does NOT change the FACT that 'it', or your "argument", is CLEARLY ILLOGICAL, UNSOUND, and INVALID. Which MEANS that your "argument" does NOT proof what you BELIEVE here is true.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:32 pmYes, it is an argument if you think throughly.Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:58 amLOL
LOL
LOL
You REALLY do make me laugh "bahman".
This is "your argument" here:
There are two types of things existing, (A and B, for example).
One of those things, ACTUALLY, does NOT even exist anyway, (B, for example).
Therefore, there is only one type of thing, ACTUALLY, existing, (which is A here).
Thee ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUS of this speaks for itself.
And, just like a LOT of your other, so-called, "arguments", they are NOT logically, sound and valid arguments AT ALL, and thus not even worth repeating.
Furthermore, and also like a LOT of your ATTEMPTS at "arguing", the MORE you 'try to' DEFEND your position, the FURTHER you CONTRADICTING and DEFEATING your OWN previous words and claims.
Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible
-
- Posts: 12357
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible
I believe this is the fundamental point and ground to the whole issue.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:38 pmThat is not the definition of mind in my worldview.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:02 amIn a qualified perspective 'the Mind' does move.
The mind is comprised of merely neural activities of the neurons in the brain.
That the neurons are in actions mean the mind is moving from one state to another.
However at a restricted level of abstraction with logic [with the LNC and LEM] as in the OP, continuous motion is impossible as analogous to discrete films manifesting 'continuous motion'.
Bahman asserted this is the mind-x 'cheating' the mind-y but that is only if one conflate the separate perspectives.
If you don't agree that the mind is merely a collective and bundle of mental activities, then you are likely to believe the mind is a sort of substance that is independent of the body. It this your belief re the mind, self and soul?
Such a concept of an independent mind is then extended to an independent soul that survives physical death.
On the contrary, note Hume's concept of self, therefrom including mind.
- Hume also denied that humans have an actual conception of the self, positing that we experience only a bundle of sensations, and that the self is nothing more than this bundle of causally-connected perceptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
Therefore if your theory of causality and continuous motion are grounded on an independent mind & objects independent of mind as discrete, your conclusions therefrom cannot be realistic.
I believe to deal with this issue of Causality and Continuous Motion we must dig into its most fundamental grounding issues, i.e.
All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643
I presume your grounding is that of 'realism' where the mind is an independent substance that is independent of all other things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
On your realism basis, the default existence of independent things are discrete objects.
Therefore to you, there is no causality and no continuous motion.
But realism [an ideology] is never realistic.
Therefore all your conclusion therefrom are never realistic.
That is why you cannot grasp the various more realistic anti-realist views or the various relative views I have presented.
Therefore if you want to ensure your theories about causality and continuous motions are tenable, then first, you have to prove realism [the ideology] is realistic. Else we can debate till the cows come home.
Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible
You move from one room to another one. The first room is the first place.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:21 amIf you are asking, "Can you become taller without losing shortness?" Then,bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pmCan you become tall without losing to being short?Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:26 am
You keep RE-REPEATING more or less the EXACT SAME things. However, I am NOT asking you to RE-REPEAT ANY thing AT ALL, and what I am ACTUALLY asking you is for CLARIFICATION.
Just LOOK AT the ACTUAL WORDS in the questions I pose, to you, for CLARIFICATION, and just answer those words alone, PLEASE.
1. You do NOT YET KNOW what the 'you' is, EXACTLY.
2. There is NO 'tall' NOR 'short' here.
3. As the human body gets 'taller' (or 'longer') the 'shortness' gets less.
What?
This is a GREAT example of how these adult human beings would say just about ANY thing to 'try to' "justify" their already obtained and very strongly held onto BELIEFS.
What does an 'object' "being in first place" even actually mean or refer to, EXACTLY?
When it moves.
Because that is the very definition of motion.
Yes. First however refers to a specific time.
In a reference that the object moves in.
The total energy is a constant. You cannot add and subtract from it.
Ok.
What you are talking about?Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 amNo you are not. But, what you are saying is just as Wrong and False as "the sun revolves around the earth". As has ALREADY been PROVED True.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pmI am not saying that the sun moves around the earth.Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am What you have said here is equivalent to saying, "The sun revolves around the earth", and, "this is our best understanding of motion", therefore, this implies, this is THEE ACTUAL best understanding. Which is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, to those who ACTUALLY KNOW better. Just like 'your' best understanding is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect to those of 'us' who ACTUALLY KNOW better.
Ok. There is no contradiction in creator creating things at a later time.
Where?
Whatever.Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 amLOL
LOL
LOL
This is WHERE you FAIL, completely.
So, to you, already existing particles have NOT even been created yet.
This is EXACTLY WHY what you are saying here is a complete CONTRADICTION, and the most laughable part of this is that you are COMPLETELY BLINDED to all of this by your own BELIEFS, which are OBVIOUSLY VERY DISTORTED, Wrong, False, AND Incorrect.
Yes. By discrete process, I mean that the distance between immediate events is not zero.Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 amWhat, EXACTLY, makes, let us say, ' the distance between the two events of "yesterday" and "tomorrow" ', a discrete process? The distance is OBVIOUSLY NOT zero, correct?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pmWell, I should have say that if the distance between two events is not zero then we are dealing with a discrete process.Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am NO I AM NOT.
If the distance between "two events" is not zero, then that just MEANS there is an ACTUAL 'distance', and that would be what I was talking about, that is; if that is what I was talking about.
But what can be CLEARLY SEEN, and PROVED True, is that I was NOT talking about ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL. And, All I did here was just ask you a CLARIFYING QUESTION, ONLY.
What is your proof?Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 amLOL Okay. Do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for this CLAIM of yours?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pmOk, but that is wrong.Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:28 am NO. NOT AT ALL.
And, this would be ANOTHER EXAMPLE of ANOTHER one of the completely and utterly ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, and Wrong ASSUMPTIONS, which you continually make here.
Oh, and by the way, I am claiming what I have ALREADY CLAIMED. That is; There IS motion, and that 'it' IS, ALWAYS, continuous.
If yes, then what is 'it', EXACTLY?
Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible
In continuous motion yes. I already gave the proof in OP.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:27 amJust saying something occurs is NOT explaining HOW nor WHY 'it' occurs.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:23 pmContinuous motion as I explained requires that a moving object exists and exists not at now! This is impossible.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:30 am
If there is any space between immediate points in a so-called continuous entity, it is not continuous and bears no relevance to the possibility or the impossibility of continuous motion.
But if there is no space between immediate points in a continuous entity, it is truly continuous but there is no room for discreteness between the continuous points and accordingly no possibility of discreteness anywhere in a continuous motion.
Continuous motion is possible. Discrete motion is impossible.
QED
And, just saying or claiming that a moving object exists and exists not at now does NOT mean that this ACTUALLY occurs AT ALL.
As I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVEN, this is just what you BELIEVE is true but which you ACTUALLY have absolutely NO proof of AT ALL.
Or, if you ACTUALLY do have proof for this claim of yours here, then you have CERTAINLY NOT produced 'it' for us to have a LOOK AT 'it'. Even though I have been continually asking you for 'it'.
Does ANY one in this forum accept and agree that "a moving object exists and exists NOT at now"?
If yes, then what PROOF do you have for this?
If you have NO proof, then WHY do you ACCEPT and AGREE WITH this claim?
Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible
Because I have an argument against it.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:01 amIf this, now, "space" "between discrete motion" can be so small that 'it' can NOT be measured, then HOW do you "KNOW" that 'it' exists?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:29 pmNo, the space between discrete motion can be so small that it cannot be measured simply.Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:25 am To me,
'motion' is; the action or process of moving or being moved and/or the phenomenon in which an object changes its position. And,
'continuous' is; forming an unbroken whole; without interruption.
So, I define 'continuous motion' as; the process of forming an unbroken whole, through movement, without interruption.
And my argument for 'continuous motion', in regards to the Universe, Itself, or Reality, is;
What thee Universe is ACTUALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY made up of and how thee Universe ACTUALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY WORKS. Or, in other words,
If the Universe began, or will end, or if there is an interrupted movement of the Universe, Itself, then there is NOT 'continuous motion'.
There is absolutely NO proof NOR even ANY indication that there was a beginning to EVERY thing, and, from my perspective, at the moment of NOW EVERY thing is continually moving, and until ACTUAL PROOF of some thing being interrupted in movement or that thee Universe/Everything did ACTUALLY begin, or will end, then the Fact that things are 'continuously moving' NOW MEANS that they ALWAYS WILL.
Therefore, until SOME one PROVIDES ACTUAL PROOF where movement is ACTUALLY broken or interrupted, then what I have observed remains THE SAME. That is; If there is just one thing that is ACTUALLY interrupted in movement, and this can be SHOWN, then 'continuous movement' for ALL does NOT exist and thus IS IMPOSSIBLE.
And, WHY, EXACTLY, are you saying and claiming that 'it' does exist?
No, that is not my argument. My argument is OP. I am just saying that because the motion seems, what we experience, continuous then it does not mean that in reality is continuous too. SO it is not a fact.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:01 amSo, because the brain within that head CHEATS 'you' when it is watching films, that brain then TELLS (cheats) you into BELIEVING that there is separation in the motion of thee Universe, Itself.
Also, is it possible that the brain within that head is CHEATING you to BELIEVE things, which ACTUALLY are NOT true, and then TRICKS you into using examples of how films are somehow separated into, who knows how many, MANY different segments.
I have no time to read all this nonsense. That is your problem if you cannot understand a simple argument.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:01 am'you', "bahman", is one of the most DISILLUSIONED ones in this forum.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:29 pmThere is motion. Continuous motion is impossible as it is illustrated in OP. Therefore, the motion is discrete as the only alternative which is left.Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:37 am If ANY one wants to SUGGEST that "Reality COULD BE discrete", then just SHOW HOW Reality COULD BE discrete. You have NOT YET done this "bahman".
And, if ANY one wants to CLAIM that "Reality IS discrete", then just PROVE this.
How much more SIMPLER could this get?
This, so-called, "argument" of yours here, in the opening post, is just an example of what BELIEVE is true, but which you do NOT have ANY ACTUAL evidence, let alone proof, for. So, what you do is just make up just about absolutely ANY thing, in the hope that that will back up and support your BELIEFS. But, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, what you said in the opening post, which was;
To move, it must not be at now at the current location and then be at the next instance at another point. But something cannot be and not be at the same instance, now (it exists at now and must not exist in order to move). Therefore, continuous motion is impossible. is ONLY your DISTORTED BELIEFS, alone.
Your first sentence is just nonsensical AND illogical. Unless, OF COURSE, you can and WILL make it make sense and logical.
Let us say that the 'it' word, in your sentence, refers to 'a ball', for example,. Now, 'To move, a ball, MUST NOT be at 'now', at the ball's current location, and then, be at the 'next instance' at another point'.
WHY do you make this CLAIM here?
And, did you get to the, so-called, "next instance", through a continuous process or did you just JUMP to the "next instance"?
By the way, the reason WHY you have such a DISTORTED BELIEF can be CLEARLY SEEN in your opening post, in this thread.
Your second sentence has just so MANY faults, flaws, and CONTRADICTIONS I am not even going to bother exposing them ALL. Or, maybe it is the way you LOOK AT and SEE what 'now' means or refers to, EXACTLY, WHY you have this view and BELIEF that you have here?
Your "conclusion' is just your BELIEF, which you had PRIOR anyway to when you came up with the first two sentences. Your first two sentences, again, is just you 'trying to' find absolutely ANY thing to help in supporting and backing up your ALREADY OBTAINED BELIEF.
Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible
Where is your proof for continuous motion?Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:08 amOF COURSE that is a CLAIM, and NOT thee PROOF.
The CLAIM is; thee PROOF is in those things, which I have said and CLAIMED it was.
When people are READY TO, and have ENOUGH INTEREST, then they will FIND and SEE thee PROOF, which I am talking about here.
How much distance there is between when this is being written, and, when people are READY TO, and have become INTERESTED ENOUGH, is a whole other matter.
But if and when ANY one is INTERESTED ENOUGH, then I can SHOW them how they can FIND and SEE thee PROOF, "themselves".
Re: Continuous motion possible or impossible
I am tired of teaching you elementary things, yet you don't understand.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:10 amYou are DONE because you can NOT counter NOR refute ANY thing in what I have said here.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:31 pmI am done with you.Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:51 am
But I think you will find that there is NOT a thing that DISAGREES with YOUR version of 'motion' and how 'that version' cannot be continuous, anyway.
Your, so-called, "argument" only proves some thing that could NOT be disproved anyway. So, "your argument" is NOT REALLY worth talking about NOR sharing.
Also, the thing about "your argument" is that it does NOT even address what most adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, would consider what 'continuous motion' even means or refers to anyway.