So i went to physics stackexchange's website and posted this question.
They closed it down because it wasn't "mainstream" .__.

Just to be clear - is there really an answer to this question? Or am i just too thick to grasp the answer? :/

No no, that's not speed infinity. Speed is defined as the limit of distance travelled per time interval in the imit time interval->0.
Continuous space and time may well be approximations of a much more complicated thing, as I've writ above. But I don't think it simply is a discrete grid

(August 24, 2015 at 10:56 pm)pool Wrote: So i went to physics stackexchange's website and posted this question.
They closed it down because it wasn't "mainstream" .__.

Just to be clear - is there really an answer to this question? Or am i just too thick to grasp the answer? :/

Have you looked at Zeno's paradoxes?

(August 25, 2015 at 12:28 am)IATIA Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 10:56 pm)pool Wrote: So i went to physics stackexchange's website and posted this question.
They closed it down because it wasn't "mainstream" .__.

Just to be clear - is there really an answer to this question? Or am i just too thick to grasp the answer? :/

Have you looked at Zeno's paradoxes?

Thanks,i looked at it.
It seems that there are a number of paradoxes of Zeno's.Should i look at any specific paradox or just everything in general?

(August 25, 2015 at 12:15 am)Alex K Wrote: No no, that's not speed infinity. Speed is defined as the limit of distance travelled per time interval in the imit time interval->0.
Continuous space and time may well be approximations of a much more complicated thing, as I've writ above. But I don't think it simply is a discrete grid

Suppose an object is moving through a set of points from - 1 to 100. 
If the object spends time 0 in each of those points then it is moving at a speed of infinity. Am i right? Time 0 in each points mean infinite speed,correct?
(Think about it)

Suppose an object is moving through a set of points from - 1 to 100.
If the object spends infinitely less time in each of those points then it is moving at an almost speed of infinity.
(Really think about it)

Did you get how i thought about it?

My point is - 
To cover a set of infinite points one would have to move at an infinite speed by spending time 0 in each of the points. 
One cannot cover a set of infinite points by moving at an almost infinite speed by spending - an infinitely less time in each of the points.

Maybe everything really is continuous but that could also mean that we are constantly moving at an infinite speed.
If everything isn't continuous it could mean that we are teleporting.
That's how i thought about it..

There is no notion of neighboring points in the continuum. And consequently, your intuition of moving between neighbouring points is not applicable in the continuum.

(August 25, 2015 at 7:47 am)Alex K Wrote: There is no notion of neighboring points in the continuum. And consequently, your intuition of moving between neighbouring points is not applicable in the continuum.

Yes but is that not how we evaluate movement,as in - absolute movement? By using space coordinates? I'm not saying that these neighboring points are *real* just that we can use them to evaluate absolute movement.The same way that gravity existed before Newton or whoever discovered it..

(August 25, 2015 at 1:10 am)pool Wrote: Suppose an object is moving through a set of points from - 1 to 100. 
If the object spends time 0 in each of those points then it is moving at a speed of infinity. Am i right? Time 0 in each points mean infinite speed,correct?
(Think about it)

Suppose an object is moving through a set of points from - 1 to 100.
If the object spends infinitely less time in each of those points then it is moving at an almost speed of infinity.
(Really think about it)

...

My point is - 
To cover a set of infinite points one would have to move at an infinite speed by spending time 0 in each of the points. 
One cannot cover a set of infinite points by moving at an almost infinite speed by spending - an infinitely less time in each of the points.

Maybe everything really is continuous but that could also mean that we are constantly moving at an infinite speed.
If everything isn't continuous it could mean that we are teleporting.
That's how i thought about it..

That's also how most other people thought of it before Newton and Leibniz formalized Calculus in the late 1600s.  Seriously, I don't think the answer to any of your questions is physics.  It's math (and basic calculus in particular).

Someone needs to learn the difference between analogue and digital.

Oh pool....