Physics of Aristotle Essay

Aristotle’s model by today’s standards can easily be picked apart, but at the time, it was the best explanation that could be made with so little technology and insight. Although his theories have long since been replaced, they created a base for future scientists to work off of and challenge. Over time many great scientists began to question Aristotle’s theories. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), for example, contested the absolute significance of the earth, and he did not agree that it should be viewed as the center of the entire universe (Lizhi & Youquan, 1987). He plotted the earth at the center of the universe and created a heliocentric system just as mathematically complicated as the Ptolemaic system (one that also improved on Aristotle’s), but it explained a number of anomalies, including resolving the issue of retrograde motion (Ede, A. & Cormack, L., 2004). The problem was that Aristotle’s physics of ‘natural motion’ fell apart without the earth in the center of everything.

The major scheme in classical approaches in that wisdom is reached through rationality, and they concluded that a part of being human was to have practicality about the world. Moral values disintegrated, “storytelling became a means for self-understanding”(Kanaris), and there was a belief that everything had an opposite. There was an pursuit by people such as Hesiod to investigate the origins and relationships between the gods and what made them “gain dominion over the cosmos” (R&H,20). In the East there was also an effort to figure out how the celestial powers and the world intertwined. Aristotle coined the term metaphysics, or beyond physics and explored how one believes something to be a truth. He inferred that something “cannot be red and not-red at the same time”

Many ancient civilizations had their own beliefs about the stars and the universe. Some examples of these intelligent civilizations were the Ancient Babylonians, Middle Eastern civilizations, Central American civilizations, Ancient Chinese, and the Ancient Greeks. The Ancient Babylonians studied patterns on Venus which were later continued by Galileo and Copernicus. People from the Middle East, Central America, and China watched the skies and made many observations and predictions of movement in the heavens. There were many famous Philosophers and Astronomers from the Ancient Greek civilizations who studied the sky. They searched for patterns and numbers to find something fundamental. Thinkers attempted to come up with combinations of uniform circular motions that would prove their already observed irregular motions. Aristotle was a Greek philosopher who thought that the moon, sun, and other planets rotated around the stationary Earth. But, as we know today, his theory was incorrect. Some other Greek philosophers attempted to measure the distance to the moon and even tried to find the size of the universe! They found the universe to be finite. On the other and, Claudius Ptolemy believed that the heavens (skies) were not made of rocks, metal, or other Earthy materials, but that they were made of

The Prime Mover becomes the efficient and final causes of the universe. Its ‘action’ in the universe is passive. It exists in a state of ‘pure actuality’ incapable of change, only contemplating its own existence. This is Aristotle’s god. Things are attracted towards the perfection found within its ‘pure actuality’. This is why the Prime Mover is known as the great attractor. Objects that move from potentiality

Galileo’s Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems uses powerful logic and simply described concepts to overcome the Aristotelian bias of the populous and argue in favor of Copernicus’ heliocentric view of the universe. Copernicus theorized that the earth, along with the other planets in the sky, is in motion around the sun. The Aristotelian’s geocentric worldview, that the earth is the motionless center of the universe, was deeply ingrained into the minds of the people and the teachings of the church. Galileo’s argument had to be not only incisive and logical to have any sway, but it also had to avoid offending or denying the ancient principles of thought proposed by Aristotle. He walked this delicate line between educating the public and

Aristotle and Newton are known for how they view the universe. Aristotle is a scientist, and Newton is a mathematician and physicist. They have created theories about why and how objects move. Aristotle believes objects move because of elements, such as fire, water, air, and earth. For example, when there is a forest fire, the smoke goes toward the sky because it is grey air heading towards air. Newton believes that objects move because they are being pushed or pulled toward something. For instance, a basketball is rolling down the driveway, the ball will stop when it hits something, or it will stop if you pick it up. Both scientists are from two different time periods and have very different point of views.

Since an essential idea of the medieval perspective toward the structure of the universe was the perfection of the planets and the position of God and his realm above them, Newton’s notions of bodies throughout the universe operating and functioning similarly dismantled this entire structure. If all other planets were governed by the same natural laws that Earth was governed on, these planets could not have been perfect nor led a hierarchy of perfection as the medieval philosophers and astronomists arranged. The medieval people were able to classify these planets as flawless celestial spheres based on the observation from their limited sight, which deems this system problematic. To Newton, this idea of a universe unified by its all encompassing

Aristotle proposed two types of motion: natural motion and violent motion. His idea that objects consisted of four elements; earth, water, air, and fire. For example, a rock being made of earth will fall to the ground if there is nothing to hold it up. He also suggested the heavier an object was, the faster it will fall compared to an object much lighter. The other type of motion, violent motion was caused by push or pull. Aristotle also suggested that objects not in their proper place or element will strive to get there. Galileo credited Copernicus’ idea of a moving Earth while reexamining Aristotle’s motion ideas. He did this by dropping objects of different weights from the same height. Each time the objects

1.1 Compare and contrast the philosophy of Heraclitus and Permenides. Clearly explain the basic conception of each system, highlighting the similarities and differences. Be sure to explain the relationship between the ontology and epistemology of each thinker. 1.1.1 The most basic contrast of Heraclitus and Parmenides is the belief in the idea of becoming and being.

He believed that the world was composed of four elements: earth, water, air, and fire. Earth, the heaviest, belonged to the lowest position in the hierarchy of the universe; water was next, then air and fire. Aristotle stated that if any of these were out of its order, then its natural motion would be to return. For instance, when there are water and earth (dirt) in a glass, water rise while dirt falls.

Anaxagoras of Clazomenae was a very influential Pre-Socratic philosopher and scientist who spoke out against the common belief of the society and formed many different views in philosophy. He had a very strong impact, as he is credited with introducing philosophy to Athens when he moved there. Despite introducing philosophy to Athens, his thoughts were also what led to his execution. He openly claimed that the sun was not a God, and the moon reflected the Sun’s light, this view was highly offensive to the religious Greeks. One of his well-known views in philosophy was derived from the structure of things, that there was “everything in everything.” In this metaphysical principle, it stated that everything is in everything at all times.

According to the common belief during the Middle Ages, the universe was comprised of many nested celestial spheres, or orbs. According to M.S. Mahoney, an astronomical researcher at Princeton University, Johannes Kepler, in his physics research, regarded “the spheres” as the “geometrical spatial regions containing each planetary orbit rather than physical bodies as in preceding Aristotelian celestial physics”. Kepler provided mathematical evidence to this theory, including the fact that the “eccentricity of each planet’s elliptical orbit and its major and minor axes defined the lengths of the radii of the inner and outer limits of its celestial sphere and, therefore, its thickness. The role of these geometrical spheres in Kepler’s Platonist geometrical cosmology was to determine the sizes and ordering of the five Platonic polyhedral within which the spheres were supposedly spatially embedded” (Mahoney). Although each sphere rotated uniformly, the combination of their separate revolutions prompted the discovery of the appearance of the irregularity in the motions of the sun and the plants as astronomers viewed from the Earth. The notion that the planets were celestial three-dimensional spheres rather than concrete two-dimensional objects contributed to the naming of Pythagoras’s theory, known as the Harmony of the Spheres.

Aristotle inherited a tradition of cosmologies espoused by the Presocratics beginning with Thales, “The Earth floats on water, which is in some way the source of all things” (Kirk B13) . The tradition continues with Anaximenes, “The earth is flat and rides on air” (B13) and reaches a zenith with Parmenides, “…there is a furthest limit, it is perfected, like the bulk of a ball well-rounded on every side, equally balanced in every direction from the center” (Fr. 8 32-49). These three quotes identify two themes that Aristotle would face while developing his cosmogony: how does the earth maintain its place in the universe and what is its shape.

A belief in the unifying principles that underlie all natural phenomena was first articulated by Aristotle, who proposed all matter stems from the four elements of nature: earth, air, fire, and water (Duft). The search for such principles has since evolved considerably, yet the firmly rooted interest in a fundamental unification persists. Unification is defined as attempts to explain several principles according to one definition or equation. This process occurs in all areas of science, from biology to cosmology, and often reduces the complexity of calculations and leads to new predictions regarding related phenomena. In physics, the unification of seemingly unrelated concepts has led to a number of pivotal discoveries. Several physicists even posit that one ultimate Theory of Everything exists to explain the nature and behavior of all matter and energy in existence (Hawking and Mlodinow). This notion has intrigued scientists and philosophers for decades, though the final theory, should one exist, has yet to be determined.

Ptolemy built on Aristotle’s ideas with his conclusions regarding the dynamics of an object thrown in the air or dropped from a tower. Ptolemy notes that when an object is dropped from a height, it falls perpendicular to the ground (DeWitt P. 92). By Ptolemy’s logic, if the Earth was moving, the object would fall behind the initial position; since