Continuous motion possible or impossible

[Age]

You haven't illustrated (or demonstrated) anything that my argument about time doesn't refute.

Sure, matter (at the quantum level) may indeed move in discrete increments.

However, if you could somehow remove all matter from the universe to the point where the universe no longer existed, time (in the "ideal" sense) would still be moving forward (continuously) from the point where the universe ceased to exist.
_______

Does time change? Moreover, what is your justification for time being continuous?

What's to stop it from continuously moving forward (again, in the "ideal" sense) from the point (or frame of reference) where (as mentioned above) the universe ceases to exist?
_______

What does the word 'time' mean or refer to, to you?

[Age]

To move, it must not be at now at the current location and then be at the next instance at another point. But something cannot be and not be at the same instance, now (it exists at now and must not exist in order to move). Therefore, continuous motion is impossible.

Note

In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.

As with the above, something can still be and not be at the same instance [time] and it is not a contradiction.
To be a contradiction, it must not be at the same time.

For example a cluster of H20 can be both hard and soft at the same time but cannot be both in the same sense as a liquid, steam, ice, snow, vapors, shot at high speed, etc.

Continuous motion is possible when something is pushed in a vacuum like in space where there is nothing to stop it.
Since the Big Bang, all things are supposedly in continuous motion.

Since BEFORE that bang ALL things are ACTUALLY in continuous motion, besides Facts, which are ALWAYS 'constantly' True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.

[bahman]

You haven't illustrated (or demonstrated) anything that my argument about time doesn't refute.

Sure, matter (at the quantum level) may indeed move in discrete increments.

However, if you could somehow remove all matter from the universe to the point where the universe no longer existed, time (in the "ideal" sense) would still be moving forward (continuously) from the point where the universe ceased to exist.
_______

Does time change? Moreover, what is your justification for time being continuous?

What's to stop it from continuously moving forward (again, in the "ideal" sense) from the point (or frame of reference) where (as mentioned above) the universe ceases to exist?
_______

Time changes. Change cannot be continuous (OP). Therefore, time changes discretely.

[bahman]

To move, it must not be at now at the current location and then be at the next instance at another point. But something cannot be and not be at the same instance, now (it exists at now and must not exist in order to move). Therefore, continuous motion is impossible.

Note

In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.

As with the above, something can still be and not be at the same instance [time] and it is not a contradiction.
To be a contradiction, it must not be at the same time.

For example a cluster of H20 can be both hard and soft at the same time but cannot be both in the same sense as a liquid, steam, ice, snow, vapors, shot at high speed, etc.

Continuous motion is possible when something is pushed in a vacuum like in space where there is nothing to stop it.
Since the Big Bang, all things are supposedly in continuous motion.

By the same instant, I mean the same time.

[bahman]

To move, it must not be at now at the current location and then be at the next instance at another point. But something cannot be and not be at the same instance, now (it exists at now and must not exist in order to move). Therefore, continuous motion is impossible.

No, you are wrong.

Why?

[bahman]

at the next point in time, what was is no longer the object of reference

-Imp

True, but I am talking about a contradiction at now.

You are talking about 'what', supposed, 'contradiction' at 'now'?

That something cannot exist and exist not at the same instant which this required for continuous motion.

[commonsense]

The open-minded bahman would notice that he is being countered by a number of truth-speakers and adjust his thinking accordingly.

[bahman]

The open-minded bahman would notice that he is being countered by a number of truth-speakers and adjust his thinking accordingly.

Where did I adjust myself?

[commonsense]

The open-minded bahman would notice that he is being countered by a number of truth-speakers and adjust his thinking accordingly.

Where did I adjust myself?

You would if you were open to others’ way of thinking.

[bahman]

The open-minded bahman would notice that he is being countered by a number of truth-speakers and adjust his thinking accordingly.

Where did I adjust myself?

You would if you were open to others’ way of thinking.

I am open. The problem is that some of the others are close.

[seeds]

Does time change? Moreover, what is your justification for time being continuous?

What's to stop it from continuously moving forward (again, in the "ideal" sense) from the point (or frame of reference) where (as mentioned above) the universe ceases to exist?
_______

Time changes. Change cannot be continuous (OP). Therefore, time changes discretely.

Imagine time as being a train moving smoothly along the tracks.

Now just because a stationary observer can say "now" it is in position (a), and the next "now" instance it has changed and is in position (b), doesn't negate the fact that it was smoothly and continuously moving along the tracks as it transitioned from point (a) to point (b).
_______

[bahman]

What's to stop it from continuously moving forward (again, in the "ideal" sense) from the point (or frame of reference) where (as mentioned above) the universe ceases to exist?
_______

Time changes. Change cannot be continuous (OP). Therefore, time changes discretely.

Imagine time as being a train moving smoothly along the tracks.

Now just because a stationary observer can say "now" it is in position (a), and the next "now" instance it has changed and is in position (b), doesn't negate the fact that it was smoothly and continuously moving along the tracks as it transitioned from point (a) to point (b).
_______

Do you understand OP? If yes what? Since what you said has no relation with OP.

[seeds]

Time changes. Change cannot be continuous (OP). Therefore, time changes discretely.

Imagine time as being a train moving smoothly along the tracks.

Now just because a stationary observer can say "now" it is in position (a), and the next "now" instance it has changed and is in position (b), doesn't negate the fact that it was smoothly and continuously moving along the tracks as it transitioned from point (a) to point (b).
_______

Do you understand OP? If yes what? Since what you said has no relation with OP.

What do you mean it has no relation with the OP?

You stated in the OP that "...continuous motion is impossible...", to which I am using the example of time itself to counter that assertion.
_______

[bahman]

Imagine time as being a train moving smoothly along the tracks.

Now just because a stationary observer can say "now" it is in position (a), and the next "now" instance it has changed and is in position (b), doesn't negate the fact that it was smoothly and continuously moving along the tracks as it transitioned from point (a) to point (b).
_______

Do you understand OP? If yes what? Since what you said has no relation with OP.

What do you mean it has no relation with the OP?

You stated in the OP that "...continuous motion is impossible...", to which I am using the example of time itself to counter that assertion.
_______

What I am trying to say in OP is not what you are saying. That is true that the position of an object changes when it is in motion. But that is not the whole point. The point is that the object should not exist at now in order to exist at a later time at another point. The object in another hand exists at now which this leads to a contradiction.

[commonsense]

Where did I adjust myself?

You would if you were open to others’ way of thinking.

I am open. The problem is that some of the others are close.

If you are open, you should be able to restate the argument(s) that they are trying to use to discredit what you are saying. Try to do that, in order to find out how open you are.