[Outlaw76]

< Sarcasm >
You know, for quiet a while I was convinced that a group of monks were using all of my wasted time and applying it to areas that just didn't have enough time.
(Thank you Terry Pratchet!)

What about that 'accident' time, the interval where you see the accident happening in slow motion? I always figured that happened because you were splitting fractions of distance and father time was trying to make up for that until it just gave up and you hit the object. Apparently Chronos' math skills aren't to blame after all. < /sarcasm >

Oddly, this makes perfect sense to me. If you could freeze a perfect instance of time, I think objects in motion would appear stretched to one degree or another relative to velocity they were traveling in. If that instant is not reachable, then the 'stretch' of the object would be longer and the leading edge less distinguishable. in other words, the absolute shape of an object could not be determined. This would make the apparent paradoxes moot. The moment Achilies catches up to would never exist. Only a series of moments where Achilies was, within some degree of probability both even with and passing the turtle simultaniously could exist. In other words, this persons understanding of calculus doesn't matter, because in this one respect calculus would not apply.

Time is fascinating.

[VadeRetro]

If you could freeze a perfect instance of time, I think objects in motion would appear stretched to one degree or another relative to velocity they were traveling in.

I can picture this perfectly; it looks like motion-blurring in still photography. The problem is that fast film and a fast shutter greatly reduce motion blur. I once was startled to develop pictures of an air show and see the rotors on flying helicopters looking crisply defined as if stationary. Certainly, I didn't remember them looking that way on my retina as they flew overhead.