Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
14,697
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 48:
Line 48: + +
Talk:Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 03:57, October 19, 2014
, 03:57, October 19, 2014→Aristotle and Motion
:::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)
:::But the "absurd conclusion" isn't relevant to anything we are discussing, and your use of it only serves to suggest his observation of the mass affecting the rate is somehow ''as'' absurd as infinitely fast decline!! Is that what you're trying to do? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:57, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
:::And Aristotle's conception of gravity isn't the same as ours, yet we are to conclude he shared our conception of differentiating mass from weight?! And using this alleged conception of mass in various propositions is to you not only central, but its centralness is clear to you?! And clear to you to a nuanced degree?! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:57, 18 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.
: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.
: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.