Statyk is right. The discussion isn't getting anywhere. It's nice to discuss such things, but the way we do it will have no result. It would be nicer if we:

1)Provide sources, links and other information about what we claim because saying "I believe that .. X,Y,Z is not valid". I mean OK , of course you can say your opinion, but you must have evidence,proof, information or whatever else you can think of so the others can i)read and learn things they didn't know, ii)judge whether what you say is right or wrong.
2)The text you write must have a logical consistency. This is very important. You can have a different opinion, fine. But you have to explain with logical steps how you reach this conclusion(e.g. The pepper is red -> The apple is red -> The apple is a fruit -> So the pepper is a fruit. Although you reached on something that is not true you tried to explain why pepper is a fruit with logical steps). Also circular logic is not a logical consistency (e.g. I am Zeus I can prove it. I am Zeus and Zeus is a god and a god never lies. Therefore I am Zues because I say I am Zeus).

Quote: Proposed solutions

According to Simplicius, Diogenes the Cynic
said nothing upon hearing Zeno's arguments, but stood up and walked, in
order to demonstrate the falsity of Zeno's conclusions. To fully solve
any of the paradoxes, however, one needs to show what is wrong with the
argument, not just the conclusions. Through history, several solutions
have been proposed, among the earliest recorded being those of Aristotle
and Archimedes.

Aristotle
(384 BC−322 BC) remarked that as the distance decreases, the time
needed to cover those distances also decreases, so that the time needed
also becomes increasingly small.[17][18]
Aristotle also distinguished "things infinite in respect of
divisibility" (such as a unit of space that can be mentally divided into
ever smaller units while remaining spatially the same) from things (or
distances) that are infinite in extension ("with respect to their
extremities").[19]

Before 212 BC, Archimedes had developed a method to derive a finite answer for the sum of infinitely many terms that get progressively smaller. (See: Geometric series, 1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256 + · · ·, The Quadrature of the Parabola.) Modern calculus achieves the same result, using more rigorous methods (see convergent series,
where the "reciprocals of powers of 2" series, equivalent to the
Dichotomy Paradox, is listed as convergent). These methods allow the
construction of solutions based on the conditions stipulated by Zeno,
i.e. the amount of time taken at each step is geometrically decreasing.[3][20]

Aristotle's objection to the arrow paradox was that "Time is not
composed of indivisible nows any more than any other magnitude is
composed of indivisibles."[21] Saint Thomas Aquinas,
commenting on Aristotle's objection, wrote "Instants are not parts of
time, for time is not made up of instants any more than a magnitude is
made of points, as we have already proved. Hence it does not follow that
a thing is not in motion in a given time, just because it is not in
motion in any instant of that time."[22] Bertrand Russell
offered what is known as the "at-at theory of motion". It agrees that
there can be no motion "during" a durationless instant, and contends
that all that is required for motion is that the arrow be at one point
at one time, at another point another time, and at appropriate points
between those two points for intervening times. In this view motion is a
function of position with respect to time.[23][24] Nick Huggett argues that Zeno is begging the question when he says that objects that occupy the same space as they do at rest must be at rest.[13]

Peter Lynds
has argued that all of Zeno's motion paradoxes are resolved by the
conclusion that instants in time and instantaneous magnitudes do not
physically exist.[25][26][27]
Lynds argues that an object in relative motion cannot have an
instantaneous or determined relative position (for if it did, it could
not be in motion), and so cannot have its motion fractionally dissected
as if it does, as is assumed by the paradoxes.

Another proposed solution is to question one of the assumptions Zeno
used in his paradoxes (particularly the Dichotomy), which is that
between any two different points in space (or time), there is always
another point. Without this assumption there are only a finite number of
distances between two points, hence there is no infinite sequence of
movements, and the paradox is resolved. The ideas of Planck length and Planck time in modern physics place a limit on the measurement of time and space, if not on time and space themselves. According to Hermann Weyl,
the assumption that space is made of finite and discrete units is
subject to a further problem, given by the "tile argument" or "distance
function problem".[28] [29]
According to this, the length of the hypotenuse of a right angled
triangle in discretized space is always equal to the length of one of
the two sides, in contradiction to geometry. Jean Paul van Bendegem has
argued that the Tile Argument can be resolved, and that discretization
can therefore remove the paradox.[3][30]

Hans Reichenbach
has proposed that the paradox may arise from considering space and time
as separate entities. In a theory like general relativity, which
presumes a single space-time continuum, the paradox may be blocked.[31]