Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Verlepte t1_j28vn4g wrote

Reply to comment by Navvana in Before Newton, how did people explain falling apples? by maugustus

The bit about Aristotle is not quite correct, that's a very Newtonian way of describing his theory. He was working within a Teleological framework, basically the idea that everything has a goal, an essence, that it's moving towards. Part of this is that like things move towards like things, so it's the 'earth' element in things that makes it move towards the earth, not due to some force but because that's where it's goal is.

103

Denziloe t1_j29kihg wrote

To elaborate. Aristotle believed that the earth element strove to be at the centre of the universe, water strove to be above earth, air above water, and fire above air. There was no concept of a force pulling everything together as in Newtonian physics.

35

obnoxiousbutquiet t1_j292t6w wrote

While I do see the philosophical distinction, this is still very Newtonian to me. Very interesting.

13

Verlepte t1_j2az2se wrote

It's fundamentally very different. In Newtonian physics there's an attractive force that causes for instance a rock to fall down to the earth. In Aristotelian physics there's no attractive force, but the rock strives towards the earth and therefore falls down towards it.

9