I agree, it seems that the concept of an instantaneous slice of time wouldn't make a lot of sense. A frame of time, to be defined, would have to have some measureable dimensions- such as length. If the length of the time frame is zero, wouldn't the time frame not exist?

Also, usually the only time we talk about an instantaneous time frame is in a context such as physics with instantaneous velocity - velocity is displacement / time so if time is zero, this clearly becomes undefined. What is really happening here, is we take the limit as x -> 0 of displacement / x so x is extremely small, but not really equal to zero.

SO, when we take an instant of time of length 0, the velocity of an object becomes undefined, and therefore the object can not be determined to be moving. But this is not correct - an object in motion has velocity of greater than zero, but by this definition, we need more than one zero-length time frame to determine the velocity.

I think based on this, you can't look at any single instant of time and find motion, motion needs to be defined in terms of multiple consecutive frames of time.

Also, usually the only time we talk about an instantaneous time frame is in a context such as physics with instantaneous velocity - velocity is displacement / time so if time is zero, this clearly becomes undefined. What is really happening here, is we take the limit as x -> 0 of displacement / x so x is extremely small, but not really equal to zero.

SO, when we take an instant of time of length 0, the velocity of an object becomes undefined, and therefore the object can not be determined to be moving. But this is not correct - an object in motion has velocity of greater than zero, but by this definition, we need more than one zero-length time frame to determine the velocity.

I think based on this, you can't look at any single instant of time and find motion, motion needs to be defined in terms of multiple consecutive frames of time.

## 0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home