How Does Zeno's Paradox Challenge Classical Mechanics?

[ABV]

Please take a look on this paradox.

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

What do you think?

 

[confinement]

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.

 

[astrokreng]

The paradox discussed in the provided link is known as the "Zeno's paradox," which raises questions about the concept of motion in classical mechanics. This paradox states that in order for an object to move from one point to another, it must first cover half the distance, then half of the remaining distance, and so on infinitely. This would mean that the object would never actually reach its destination, as there would always be a remaining distance to cover.

I can say that this paradox was resolved by the development of calculus and the concept of infinite series. It is now understood that although there may be an infinite number of points between two points, the sum of the distances between these points can still be finite. In other words, the object can cover an infinite number of points in a finite amount of time, allowing it to reach its destination.

Furthermore, this paradox only applies to a theoretical scenario in which the object is continuously dividing the distance into smaller and smaller portions. In reality, objects do not move in this manner and their motion can be accurately described using the laws of classical mechanics.

Overall, while this paradox may have raised questions about the nature of motion in classical mechanics, it has been resolved through further understanding and advancements in mathematics and physics.