Fletcher's Paradox - Lynds' Resolution or not?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Talanic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paradox Resolution
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Fletcher's Paradox and Peter Lynds' resolution, which posits that time cannot be measured in discrete instants. Participants explore the concept that motion may be an inherent characteristic of objects, referencing Einstein's theories on mass and velocity. The conversation highlights the historical resolution of Fletcher's Paradox through infinite series and calculus, emphasizing that motion is intrinsic to objects, contrasting Aristotle's view of rest as the natural state. Key concepts include the distinction between instantaneous and average velocity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Fletcher's Paradox and its historical context
  • Familiarity with Einstein's theories on mass and velocity
  • Knowledge of infinite series and calculus principles
  • Concepts of instantaneous versus average velocity
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical resolution of Zeno's Paradoxes using infinite series
  • Study Einstein's theory of relativity and its implications on mass and velocity
  • Explore the concept of momentum in classical mechanics
  • Investigate the philosophical implications of time measurement in physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, science fiction writers, and anyone interested in the philosophical and mathematical aspects of motion and time in physics.

Talanic
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi there. I was wondering recently about the Fletcher's Paradox, and Peter Lynds' solution - the idea that time can't truly be measured in individual instants.

Now, I'm not actually a physicist - just a science fiction writer. But has anyone proposed the alternate solution that motion is an inherent characteristic of a moving object? After all, don't Einstein's theories indicate that an object's mass increases with its speed? This would seem to say that, in a frozen moment, velocity would still exist as an innate property.

I could be entirely off base here, but I was curious.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm sort of with you on velocity as an inherent characteristic. If you think of an object not as a 3D thing which changes from moment to moment but as a (static) 4D thing, then the velocity is just a sort of tangent vector to the 4D object at a certain point in spacetime.
 
The Fletcher's Paradox (one of Zeno's Paradoxes I think) is generally agreed to have been resolved by mathematicians centuries ago using results from infinite series and calculus. The Fletcher's Paradox in particular can be thought of as an example of a geometric series...what Zeno (and apparently Peter Lynds) failed to realize is that you can add up an infinite number of terms and still obtain a finite answer. As for motion being an intrinsic property of an object, this isn't a new idea...thats the idea underlying momentum. Aristotle thought that a force was necessary to keep an object at motion and that its natural state was at rest. Momentum in Newton's physics stands in opposition to this idea...instead uniform motion is viewed as the natural state, and a force is required to accelerate. You should read up on the difference between instantaneous and average velocity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K