4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 169:
Line 169: − + + +
→Galileo's experiments dropping objects?
::: I don't agree with "Aristotle couldn't have done any experiments or even been a very good observer." He is credited with all sorts of scientific observations. Yeah, he did some goofy theorizing, and I can't make much sense of his physics writings. But I don't really agree with saying that he was proved wrong unless someone can show precisely what he said and precisely what proves him wrong. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::: I don't agree with "Aristotle couldn't have done any experiments or even been a very good observer." He is credited with all sorts of scientific observations. Yeah, he did some goofy theorizing, and I can't make much sense of his physics writings. But I don't really agree with saying that he was proved wrong unless someone can show precisely what he said and precisely what proves him wrong. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: He said "Similarly the void can bear no ratio to the full, and therefore neither can movement through the one to movement through the other, but if a thing moves through the thickest medium such and such a distance in such and such a time, it moves through the void with a speed beyond any ratio." What do you think that means? I think it in modern parlance, "in a vacuum, objects fall with infinite speed." They don't.
:::: My bad, I should have said he couldn't have done experiments or been a very good observer ''of falling objects.'' As penance I promise to write something about Aristotle's lantern someday... when someone gets around to writing an article on [[sea urchins]].
:::: He said "Similarly the void can bear no ratio to the full, and therefore neither can movement through the one to movement through the other, but if a thing moves through the thickest medium such and such a distance in such and such a time, it moves through the void with a speed beyond any ratio." What do you think that means? I think it means, in modern parlance, "in a vacuum, objects fall with infinite speed." They don't.
:::: From what he says about ratios, I ''think'' Galileo represented Aristotle fairly. Aristotle seems to be saying that the speed of a falling object is directly proportional to its weight and inversely proportional to the resistance of the medium.
:::: From what he says about ratios, I ''think'' Galileo represented Aristotle fairly. Aristotle seems to be saying that the speed of a falling object is directly proportional to its weight and inversely proportional to the resistance of the medium.
:::: At best you can say Aristotle is correct in situations where the Reynolds number is very low. He's wildly incorrect for things like stones and cannonballs and blocks of wood falling distances of tens to hundreds of feet in air. I don't see anything obvious in the passage I linked to that shows he has any awareness of his statements being ''limited'' to things like inflated bladders or gossamer. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: At best you can say Aristotle is correct in situations where the Reynolds number is very low. He's wildly incorrect for things like stones and cannonballs and blocks of wood falling distances of tens to hundreds of feet in air. I don't see anything obvious in the passage I linked to that shows he has any awareness of his statements being ''limited'' to things like inflated bladders or gossamer. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)