1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 71:
Line 71: + + + + +
Copernican Revolution
:::P. S. I blabbed about this a lot in [[Talk:Galileo]] and tried to make sense of an English translation of Aristotle. I think that Aristotle's mental model was that objects have no inertia—inertia is in fact a very non-obvious concept if you didn't take high-school physics—so the speed of fall is directly proportional to weight and ''inversely proportional to air resistance.'' One of his reasons why there can't be a vacuum is that in a vacuum, all objects would move with infinite speed. At least that's what I think he was saying. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:::P. S. I blabbed about this a lot in [[Talk:Galileo]] and tried to make sense of an English translation of Aristotle. I think that Aristotle's mental model was that objects have no inertia—inertia is in fact a very non-obvious concept if you didn't take high-school physics—so the speed of fall is directly proportional to weight and ''inversely proportional to air resistance.'' One of his reasons why there can't be a vacuum is that in a vacuum, all objects would move with infinite speed. At least that's what I think he was saying. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
== Copernican Revolution ==
NItramNos has made a number of edits that reverse the meaning of several statements and I suggest reverted nearly all of it.
He admits that the Copernican theory was less accurate than the Ptolemaic, but insists on saying that the Copernican was a scientific revolution as defined by accounting for more observations. But it is just not true that the Copernican accounted for more observations. He inserts his own explanations of why the Copernican was less accurate, but they just aren't relevant. He deletes comments about the scientific nature of Copernicus's work. He also distorts Kuhn's definition of a revolution. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:18, 23 May 2007 (EDT)