Invincible turtles?

[iago]

Hmm, good question.  Although it does sound like a possibility, and it would definitely go a distance towards refuting my "half an atom's length" argument, I'm not sure if it directly applies. 

I think that the wikipedia post summed it up best.  The limit as the time slice approaches 0 doesn't have to be 0.  Which is what Mynd said, in a shorter way :)

[Sidoh]

Yes, you can move half an atom's length;  I agree with you on that.  There is a limit with quantum physics as to how small a distance you can move, though.

But yes, that's a more justified answer.  I think mine makes sense too, though.  :)

[iago]

Yes, you can move half an atom's length;  I agree with you on that.  There is a limit with quantum physics as to how small a distance you can move, though.

Once you get down to the size of an atom, however, you start facing more issues.  That's why I didn't say "it refutes", but it's a start.  There are more problems like uncertainity, like the fact that atoms can also be treated as waves, and probabilistic entities, not totally physical.  I'm not sure how motion works at that level, I'm no expert in the field. 

[Sidoh]

Once you get down to the size of an atom, however, you start facing more issues.  That's why I didn't say "it refutes", but it's a start.  There are more problems like uncertainity, like the fact that atoms can also be treated as waves, and probabilistic entities, not totally physical.  I'm not sure how motion works at that level, I'm no expert in the field. 

I don't think I've heard of treating atoms as waves, but I could just be spacing that out.  I've heard plenty of the Electron Wave theory though.

[iago]

Once you get down to the size of an atom, however, you start facing more issues.  That's why I didn't say "it refutes", but it's a start.  There are more problems like uncertainity, like the fact that atoms can also be treated as waves, and probabilistic entities, not totally physical.  I'm not sure how motion works at that level, I'm no expert in the field. 

I don't think I've heard of treating atoms as waves, but I could just be spacing that out.  I've heard plenty of the Electron Wave theory though.

It involves how the electrons orbit the aton, so you're right.  I didn't mean entire atoms, I meant bits of atom :)

Lots of info here, anyway:
http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~zgap118/

[rabbit]

Doesn't quantum physics tie in here too?  IE "It's either here or there, there's no in between."

"Here" is wherever the object is, and "in between" and "there" are both defined as target locations by some observer, so as soon as it is "in between", "here" is redefined to be where "in between" was, and "in between" is redefined to a new position, and does not exist (much like a point on the cartesion plane, it has location but nothing else).  "In between" is also an array, as best illustrated by this crappy image:



There are infinite "in between" points, and each is defined by changing what "here" and "there" are.  So, technically, the object is "here", "there", and an infinitude of the point "in between".

[Sidoh]

I was talking at things around the size of an electron.  I understand that in hypothetical terms, there are infinite points inbetween two points.

However, I was saying when you start moving a physical object in small enough increments, it will stop moving in lesser increments at some point.  At least that's what my minimal understanding of quantum physics explains in this example.