Return to Question

The question I asked was disputed amongst XVIIe century physicists (at least before the invention of calculus).

How is it solved by modern physics?

If the object is at rest at some instant, one cannot understand how the movement starts again ( due to the inertia principle).

If the object is not at rest at some instant, it seems necessary that there is some instant at which it goes in both directions ( for example, some moment at which a ball bouncing on the ground is both falling and going back up).

In which false assumptions does this dilemma originate according to modern physics?

The question I asked was disputed amongst XVIIe century physicists (at least before the invention of calculus).

Reference: Spinoza, Principles of Descartes' philosophy ( Part II: Descartes' Physics, Proposition XIX). Here, Spinoza, following Descartes, denies that a body, the direction of which is changing, is at rest for some instant.

https://archive.org/details/principlesdescar00spin/page/86

How is it solved by modern physics?

If the object is at rest at some instant, one cannot understand how the movement starts again ( due to the inertia principle).

If the object is not at rest at some instant, it seems necessary that there is some instant at which it goes in both directions ( for example, some moment at which a ball bouncing on the ground is both falling and going back up).

In which false assumptions does this dilemma originate according to modern physics?

The question I asked was disputed amongst XVIIe century physicists ( at least before the invention of calculus).

How is it solved by modern physics?

If the object is at rest at some instant  , one cannot understand how the movement starts again ( due to the inertia principle).

If the object is not at rest at some instant, it seems necesssary that there is some instant at which it goes in both directions ( for example  , some moment at which a ball bouncing on the ground is both falling and going back up).

In which false assumptions does this dilemma originate according to modern physics?

The question I asked was disputed amongst XVIIe century physicists (at least before the invention of calculus).

How is it solved by modern physics?

If the object is at rest at some instant, one cannot understand how the movement starts again ( due to the inertia principle).

If the object is not at rest at some instant, it seems necessary that there is some instant at which it goes in both directions ( for example, some moment at which a ball bouncing on the ground is both falling and going back up).

In which false assumptions does this dilemma originate according to modern physics?

The question I asked was disputed amongst XVIIe century physicists ( at least before the invention of calculus).

How is it solved by modern physics?

If the object is at rest at some instant , one cannot understand how the movement starts again ( due to the inertia principle).

If the object is not at rest at some instant, it seems necesssary that there is some instant at which it goes in both directions ( for example , some moment at which a ball bouncing on the ground is both falling and going back up).

The question I asked was disputed amongst XVIIe century physicists ( at least before the invention of calculus).

How is it solved by modern physics?

If the object is at rest at some instant , one cannot understand how the movement starts again ( due to the inertia principle).

If the object is not at rest at some instant, it seems necesssary that there is some instant at which it goes in both directions ( for example , some moment at which a ball bouncing on the ground is both falling and going back up).

In which false assumptions does this dilemma originate according to modern physics?