SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 48:
Line 48: + + +
Talk:Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 04:40, October 15, 2014
, 04:40, October 15, 2014→Aristotle and Motion: OK, maybe we can treat Aristotle better.
:::Do you suppose that you could have cited the wrong section? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:05, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
:::Do you suppose that you could have cited the wrong section? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:05, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
::::I don't believe so. In this chapter, Aristotle is arguing against the "void," a concept similar to the vacuum. He correctly notes that the medium through which a body falls affects the rate of fall by resisting its motion. He incorrectly notes that the mass also affects the rate. He concludes that in no medium (the void) an object will fall infinitely fast. This absurd conclusion proves the impossibility of the void. The "impulse" of weight is what we would call gravity, but in his physics it was a function of that weight. If you read the whole chapter, the centrality of a falling object's velocity being determined by its mass is quite clear. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 17:54, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
::::I don't believe so. In this chapter, Aristotle is arguing against the "void," a concept similar to the vacuum. He correctly notes that the medium through which a body falls affects the rate of fall by resisting its motion. He incorrectly notes that the mass also affects the rate. He concludes that in no medium (the void) an object will fall infinitely fast. This absurd conclusion proves the impossibility of the void. The "impulse" of weight is what we would call gravity, but in his physics it was a function of that weight. If you read the whole chapter, the centrality of a falling object's velocity being determined by its mass is quite clear. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 17:54, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
:Perhaps I came across as disrespecting one of the greatest thinkers of antiquity, for which I apologize. The intention of that whole section was to give examples of "accepted wisdom" being overthrown later by observation and experiment, and the gravity business, with the Leaning Tower of Pisa, is a well known example. Perhaps a more nuanced treatment of Aristotle's role in this is called for.
:I do have a couple of web references that suggest a link between Aristotle and some kind of notion that heavier/denser objects fall faster. It may be a (wrong) conclusion that other people drew from what Aristotle said. In any case, I don't have time to work on that just now. Maybe this weekend.
:This has been the most interesting thing to happen at Conservapedia in a couple of years. Much better than the "atheism and applesauce" series. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:40, 15 October 2014 (EDT)