- #1
x3r0
- 7
- 0
Hello
I have presented this to many people and they get mad every time i say it. theoretically, an object cannot travel the full distance from point A to point B. the reason being is because you first must travel half of the distance in order to travel the full distance, yes? well, after you accomplish this, you must travel the next half to reach the end. but after this you must travel half the distance Again to reach the end of your journey. the paradox is like cutting something in half, you can never get rid of it because you keep cutting it into halves. any thoughts or red faces about this? i understand that yes in reality you can travel a full distance, just wondering if there is any way to disprove this theory other than the obvious, such as wrong assumptions of the problem.
I have presented this to many people and they get mad every time i say it. theoretically, an object cannot travel the full distance from point A to point B. the reason being is because you first must travel half of the distance in order to travel the full distance, yes? well, after you accomplish this, you must travel the next half to reach the end. but after this you must travel half the distance Again to reach the end of your journey. the paradox is like cutting something in half, you can never get rid of it because you keep cutting it into halves. any thoughts or red faces about this? i understand that yes in reality you can travel a full distance, just wondering if there is any way to disprove this theory other than the obvious, such as wrong assumptions of the problem.