How Does Zeno's Paradox Challenge Classical Mechanics?

AI Thread Summary
Zeno's Paradox is critiqued as a miscalculation rather than a genuine paradox in classical mechanics. The discussion emphasizes the importance of formulating a Hamiltonian to accurately describe the system in question. Without this proper framework, the argument presented in the linked content is deemed confusing and misleading. The consensus is that the paradox does not hold up under rigorous analysis. Overall, the conversation underscores the need for precise mathematical modeling in addressing philosophical challenges to classical mechanics.
ABV
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Please take a look on this paradox.

http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/paradox-in-classical-mechanic/1xmqm1l0s4ys/3#

What do you think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
There was another thread on the forum recently by the author of that nonsense. It is not a paradox, but a 'miscalculation' to put it kindly.

The author does not write down a Hamiltonian that describes the system. If we do this, instead of following the confusing pseudo-analysis in the link above, we see that the obsfucated contraption goes nowhere.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

A Rotation with Translation Movement is standalone natural phenomenon.
Replies
1
Views
3K
Classical Searching for a book similar to physical Paradoxes and Sophisms
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Proof that canonical transformation implies symplectic condition
Replies
7
Views
2K
A Is there still a Wigner's friend paradox?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Probability density function in classical mechanics
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Why is it Impossible to Solve the Three Body Problem Analytically?
Replies
6
Views
4K
I Solving Zeno's Paradox: The Flaw in the Notion of Infinity
Replies
46
Views
7K
I How Does Quantum Field Theory Address Zeno's Paradox of Touch?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Challenging Susskind's "rule" for classical mechanics
Replies
10
Views
2K
Classical mechanics: Jacobi variational principle
Replies
8
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top