Hmm... does time flow? I guess flow, in this case, means continuous. For something to be continuous there would have to be infinitely many divisions of it.

Scientists seem to have isolated the smallest instant of possible time through experiment, where it is impossible to divide the instants any further. Thus, time is not continuous. Therefore it doesn't flow, but manifests to us in discrete moments.

Is that so hard to understand?

I know that I'm wrong, by the way, in thinking this. Can anyone convince me otherwise?

So does the fly stop or not?If it does not stop how does it change direction without stopping..I still claim its not if it stops, its for how long..The law of logic demands it stops..

I think the answer lies somewhere with the idea that if time is discrete, like the rungs on a ladder, there is no way to describe what happens to change the direction of the fly in the same manner you can not climb the ladder by using the space between the rungs. It is an instantanoues change, there is no stopping for any duration of time, since there is no time (or rungs) between the discrete steps (or that it is meaningless to attempt to describe time between the discrete steps)

Sorry but its nothing like climbing a ladder, the feet stop but the body is continuing its journey.Time is the knowing.

Now is movement calculated by your infinitely small measurements of time or is time an amazing illusion.

I think, as far as an analogy goes, it is perfectly acceptable. You can not place your feet between the rungs and climb the ladder, your feet must have certain discrete locations, in effect the height you reach as you climb the ladder is quanitised. You state "its not if it stops, its for how long.." the rung-analogy provides an answer i.e it is incorrect to think how long does it stop for as there is no time interval shorter, it could appear instantaneous. It is analogous to saying how high off the ground are you if you stand on rung 0.5, you can not, your height off the ground is either 0 rung or 1 rung, there can not be height = 0.5 rung

Or time can be discrete, in which case the idea of infinitely smaller units of time can be abandoned.

Sorry but appear to be contradicting yourelf.

I hope not :perplexed:

Could you please show me the contradiction.

EDIT

I thought of another way to think of what is happening and that is to realise that objects are not rigid. The leading edge of a tennis ball, as it hits a tennis racket, slows down before the trailing half. The opposite, but equal force of the tennis racket makes the part of the ball change direction prior to the entire ball changing direction.

The speed of movement confuses the observer into thinking time moves at different speeds,as you know it does not.

So the fly stops, its how long for? is the only question.

Hello xris.

I will leave until later as I firstly want to understand your view first.

I would like to understand what it means when you say the fly stops. As the fly hits the train its head will stop first, the transfer of momentum from the train will cause its head to then move backwards. The problem for the fly is that the relativily large momentum of the train means its head is going to be travelling in the opposite direction well before the rest of its body is.

Various parts of the fly stop at different times. So what does it mean to say the fly stops?

Constant movement is an object moving from one location to another it has to move in increments otherwise it would be in two places at the same time.Its a matter of accepting time is the measurement of action.As you cant see time moving, we only ever see snippets of time and they are not divisible or enlargeable.Instants of time recorded by movement.The speed of movement confuses the observer into thinking time moves at different speeds,as you know it does not.So the fly stops, its how long for? is the only question.

Umm, time does move at different speeds. It's called 'relativity'. There was this really smart guy named Albert Einstein. He figured that one out. It changes relative to speed and gravity.

What if it was another train colliding with my train?Would you say the front would crumple and the last carriage would follow the previous carriage and they would all stop at different times?

If one had more mass than the other and more speed it would overcome the lighter and slower train and push it backwards.Before it pushed it backwards they would both stop, for considerable longer than when my train hit the fly but stop they do.Xris..

If time didn't flow regularly, noone would notice, because you'd see life in slow motion while you're in slow motion, therefore you'd see everything at the same speeds.

Yes, since there are no rigid objects.

Yes, since there are no rigid trains.

Yes, since there are no rigid objects.

I can not understand how both would stop. The lighter and slower train does not have enough momentum (product of the mass and velocity) to stop a larger faster train. It does have enough momentum to alter the velocity part of the mometum of the larger faster train and perhaps crumple part of the larger faster train, but to stop it no.

Alter the velocity ,what is velocity?

what is stopping what is moving?

I will up the anti..two trains equal speed equal weight.They collide head on,logic will tell us they both stop ,agree?

Now one is a minute gramme heavier than the other, what happens.Another thought a fly manages to get up to an incredible speed and smashes into a motionless train, what happens?What happens as the fly gets bigger and faster?

We only ever see now,we don't see the past ,we remeber it.We never see the future we imagine it.

We only see time at the instant it occurs, its our mind that creates the illusion of it flowing The train hitting the fly is that instant, it is frozen in that moment,a moment that cant be divided or enlarged