Is there a worse philosopher than Aristotle? >Assumes the

To be honest, it says more about the people after, than him.

The fact that people just took his word on face value was the problem, not that he was wrong.

>>374475
>Never bothers to test it
It was 300BC (Actually before that, he was teaching Alexander in 340BC~) How the fuck are you meant to test shit with that kind of tech/

>>374475

THE SECOND "POINT" —"THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE"— MAY BE ACCURATE THOUGH; WE DO NOT EVEN KNOW HOW EARTH, AS SEEN FROM ABOVE AND AFAR, BEYOND THE ATMOSPHERE, APPEARS.

>>374500

ONE DOES NOT NEED CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, OR ANY TECHNOLOGY AT ALL, TO TEST IF HEAVIER OBJECTS FALL FASTER THAN LIGHTER ONES.

Gets a bad rap. Sure we realize today he was wrong about almost everything but for his time his ideas were sensible and the guy played a huge role in setting the foundation for philosophy and science.

>>374500
The first and third one on that list can be tested without technology.

>>374506
>... [ARISTOTLE] played a huge role in setting the foundation for philosophy...

NO; PHILOSOPHY ALREADY HAD A RICH TWO CENTURY FOUNDATION WHEN HE STARTED "TEACHING".

>... and science.

ARISTOTELIAN SCIENCE, NOT SCIENCE IN GENERAL.

>>374506
>the guy played a huge role in setting the foundation for philosophy and science.
>science

As OP points out, the guy was completely anti-science when "investigating" the world

All things being equal except weight (size, shape, etc) the heavier object will fall faster. It's not really rocket science guys.

>>374475
He was doing the best he could with what we had. The correct thing to do always seems obvious in hindsight. I blame the ones who blindly parroted him, not the man himself.

>>374513
>>374503
>>374501
U R A MASSIVE FAGGOT

>>374475
>ancient greek peer review
>BEHOLD A MAN

I actually think Plato was a lot better than Aristotle. Plato's form theory, if interpreted metaphorically makes a lot of sense. Plato ultimately outlived Aristotle, while Plato would go into be an important part of Hegel, Aristotle's place in the philosophical world is mostly gone.

>>374514
Are you guys fucking jocking? So he didn't write anything about the natural observations (he defo wasn't the first one to create a systatmic investigation method in biology), didn't teach maths, bio, formal logic. The arab's definatley nick most of their ideas straight up from him. SeemsGood. Read a fucking book you dumb dumb niggas

>>374503
All things being equal except weight (size, shape, etc) the heavier object will fall faster. It's not really rocket science guy.

>>374513
That's why I said "a" role. Not that he founded philosophy by himself. And yes he was a pretty shitty scientist but it was still a step up from what was being done previously. I'm not actually defending his ideas because they've been pretty thoroughly discredited. Just that it's a bad idea to write him off as an idiot by ignoring the context.

And will you fucking turn caps lock off what the hell is your problem.

>>374534
Could I ask you to be spefic because your implying that most of his ideas have been discarded? I think that is wrong m99

>>374513
Philosophy as it exists today is definitely a post-Aristotelian phenomenon. Everyone before Plato and Aristotle were prelude.

>>374532
Seriously, like what the fuck? Practically Aristotle's whole thing was vigorous examination of empirical evidence. He was the first taxonomist, he collected hundreds of actual constitutions to investigate political science. These idiots have never read Aristotle.

>>374514
Without his emphasis on knowledge based on the senses, natural observation and formal logic science as we know it may never have existed.

This stuff doesn't come out of thin air

>>374555
>knowledge based on the senses

Like heavier objects falling faster than lighter objects?

>>374551
His worst sin was making a few really memeable mistakes that, in modern times, have sort of overtaken his actual accomplishments. Damn shame.

>>374563
All things being equal except weight (size, shape, etc) the heavier object will fall faster. It's not really rocket science.

>>374538
His physics and ethics most notably. I've read some stuff that his formal logic is antiquated but I don't know enough about it to comment.

>>374572
All things being equal except weight (size, shape, etc) the heavier object will fall faster.

>>374569
>>374533
>>374516
Stop fucking trolling you nitwit. We get it, you're stupid

>philosopher
>posts something about his physics

>>374582
Are you seriously this retarded? The heavier object falls faster because the force of gravity is proportional to mass, and therefore higher for the heavier object.

File: Get a load of this guy.jpg (12KB, 200x219px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 200x219px

>>374503

>>374590
>force of gravity is proportional to mass

Yes. But mass is not acceleration

>>374563
I didn't say he was using the scientific method. He observed things, or thought he did and then made a chain of logical assumptions based off them.

The fact that this process is really fallible is why they developed the scientific method in the first place.

>>374597
>mass
Meant force

>>374590
>force of gravity is equivalent to the speed at which an object is pulled

Dude what

>>374586
>physics

How exactly can sitting in a chair and making shit up about the world considered physics?

>>374604
>>374602
>>374597
The greater force results in greater speed, assuming all other physical characteristics except weight are the same.

>>374606
because it was over two thousand years ago and that was the best anyone had come up with at that point

>>374606
>>374625
The same way stupid people on the internet claim that for two identical objects only differing in weight would fall at the same speed while sitting at their computers.

Aristotle LITERALLY only had a compass and straight-edge to examine the entire world with. He made a few mistakes, it's understandable.

So for all the stupid people, imagine you have a sphere of lead, 1 foot in diameter. How fast would it fall if you threw it off the top of a tower? Would it not fall faster than a 1 foot sphere of a lighter substance? You should be able to understand this intuitively.

>>374648
>You should be able to understand this intuitively

t. Aristotle

>>374648
No one gives a shit faggot

>>374651
>>374655
Are you implying a 1 foot spherical balloon inflated with helium would fall just as fast as the 1 foot spherical lead ball? How can you mock Aristotle's physics when you lack a basic understanding of this world's physics?

At least criticize the man for his philosophy rather than for his science.

>>374674
See >>374606

Science didn't exist, and he definitely didn't do science

>>374648
I'm not sure what this shitposting is actually about. Is it meant to make Aristotle look suitibly ridiculous by pointing out a big mistake he made? There's plenty of that already, there's no point in extending it. Is it meant to mock /his/ and /lit/'s aversion to empiricism and science in general so it presents a ridiculous caricature of their actual behaviour? What's your play, man?

>>374680
> Is it meant to mock /his/ and /lit/'s aversion to empiricism and science in general so it presents a ridiculous caricature of their actual behaviour?
You mock a man smarter than yourself with false knowledge you hold as fact. Again, if you were to climb a tower, and threw two objects identical in size and shape, but differing in weight, the heavier object would fall faster. This is just common sense.

Seriously, I can not comprehend the level of stupidity in this thread. Aristotle understood the world to consist of four elements earth, fire, air, and water. Apparently, unlike you, he realized if you move through the air, the wind imparts a force against you. A falling object must pass through the air to reach the earth. Therefore, an increase in weight results in an increase in force to counter the force imparted by elemental air.

People have to understand how big deal his ideas where at the time, when the concept of -categorizing- your empirical data makes you a philosophical rockstar.

His Categories (that can be summed up as "hey senpai what if people don't study every object at the same time and if there was some way to sort objects of study) is so influence, brilliant and important for the evolution of science that it was basically heresy to defy his teachings.

All you idiots who think objects fall at the same speed should read Aristotle's Treatise on the Heavens where he covers a primitive description of air resistance.

>The warmth and light which proceed from them are caused by the friction set up in the air by their motion.

The same friction that applies to meteors applies to falling objects. That friction is proportional to the shape and size of the object, and resists the motion of the object. Therefore, an object with greater mass, and greater force, can better resist the friction of air resistance. So yes, heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.

Aristotle:1 4chan nerds:0

>>374755
>The same friction that applies to meteors applies to falling objects

Friction is not what causes meteors to burn up or feathers to fall slow

>>374764
Air resistance or fluid resistance is a kind of friction. Educate yourself.

It's true that air resistance is not the primary cause of a meteor burning up, but Aristotle was notoriously bad at describing astral bodies.

But he was still more right than you faggots about heavy objects.

File: 1446936249732.jpg (32KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 720x480px

>>374680

This thread really opens my eyes to how pointless it is to argue philosophy on 4chan

>>374475
>Assumes the universe works a certain way.
gee golly i'm sure glad we got away from that one
>Never bothers to test it.
i guess that puts Descartes on the same level as aristotle
>Takes experiments by Galileo to finally disprove him
wouldn't that be a testament to the consistency of his theory with reality?

>>374882
Except all things being equal, a heavier object falls faster than a lighter one. At least that's how it works here on Earth. I don't know what planet you're from.

>>374895
>Except all things being equal, a heavier object falls faster than a lighter one. At least that's how it works here on Earth

Except it doesn't work like that under all conditions

>>374903
That's how it works on Earth. Last time I checked, Aristotle was from what planet? Galileo did experiments on what planet?

>>374895
never disagreed
>>374903
name one condition available to the ancient greeks that would cause a heavier object to fall slower than a lighter object.

>>374914
Not saying the Greeks could have tested it, but it does show the limitations of attributing validity to Aristotle's findings

File: bullets.png (9KB, 498x203px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 498x203px

>>374475
Seriously, how could Aristotle be this stupid? Had he never seen a stone get thrown in an arch?

>>374914
>>374926
There is no way the Greeks could have shown a lighter object falling faster than a heavier one, but then neither Galileo or modern scientists have been able to show this because all objects fall at the same rate regardless of weight.

File: bullet_trajectory2.jpg (32KB, 550x212px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 550x212px

>>374926
wut

>>374964
That's not true. As said multiple times before, all things being equal except weight, the heavier object falls faster.

>>374926
But half the posters on /his/ are doing what they criticize Aristotle and his followers did, asserting things without empirical evidence, and simply parroting incorrect information, while trying to call him stupid because he was wrong in retrospect.

>>374895
>>374909
Only if the force caused by air resistance is significant. A wood block and a lead block will fall pretty much the exact same speed.

>>374990
>women have less teeth than men

desu he was pretty dumb.

>>374990
>half the posters on /his/ are doing
>asserting things without empirical evidence, and simply parroting incorrect information

This is mostly while Americans are awake

He was a genius in his time, but that doesn't mean his ideas have been superseded by superior modern explanations

>>374995
You do realize the number of countable teeth varies because of impacted wisdom teeth right?

>hurr why didnt he ask 100 women hey babe can i count your teeth

>>375011
haven't*

>>374993
You're implying a sheet of balsa wood would fall at the same rate as the equivalent size sheet of lead?

Okay so like

Who's being ironic here

>>374981
I've been watching this thread for a while like a man with morbid curiosity watching a brutal train crash, waiting to see if someone would post Newton's laws to blow you retards the fuck out but it doesn't seem like that's gonna happen so:

W = MG
W =F = MA
A = F / M
A = W / M = (MG) / M = G
A = G

Therefore regardless of weight, an object will always accelerate (fall) at the exact same rate, equal to earth's gravitational pull. Of course this ignores air resistance and overall ignores the fact that I'm responding to b8. Have fun pretending to be retarded guys.

>>375030
>Of course this ignores air resistance
>HURRR DURRRR
>IM RIGHT EXCEPT IM NOT

>>375030
>>375056
>tfw objects where everything is exactly the same as another object except for mass

Then no, it doesn't ignore air resistance. Friction is based on surface area, not mass.

>>375030
Enjoy suffocating on planet airless earth.

>>375088
Both of these are wrong. Force causes change in velocity, and inertia is the base resistance to change in velocity. A stationary object is equally effected by inertia as a moving object.

>Takes experiments by Galileo to finally disprove him
To be fair Aristotle's physics were already regarded as false in 13th century Paris. But then they were reestablished as authorative by the Humanists, and Galileo first provided experimental proof of their falseness.

The problem wasn't Aristotle so much as Western worship of ancient Greeks, and the way Aristotle was blindly followed as dogma for much of the Middle Ages until the 1200s, and then again during the Renaissance.

>>375088
Galileo didn't come up with inertia though (or with anything actually). That concept was developed by Jean Buridan 300 years earlier.

>>375121
>Aristotle was blindly followed as dogma for much of the Middle Ages until the 1200s, and then again during the Renaissance.

THIS

>>375066
that is only true for slowly falling masses. Also with a higher mass it will still fall faster because it has the same air resistance but higher mass.

when you do a free body force diagram there will be a larger difference downwards

>>374475
aristotle says that the goal of life is to contemplate.

today, we are far from contemplating since all we do is try ''to understand''

Aristotle was observing friction. What other people were able to do was imagine physics without friction, then add friction back in as a separate component.

>>374475
The heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones is actually true, no matter how you autists sperg about it.
A feather will certainly descend slower than a heavy iron block just from wind resistence alone.

>>375193
A pea will fall much faster than a much heavier spread out bedsheet. Not to mention this implies that if you put a bunch of pebbles in a bag it would somehow fall faster than if you threw a handful of pebbles.

I can't believe I still have to argue like it's the Renaissance.

File: 1449505692838.jpg (44KB, 550x404px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 550x404px

>le internet neckbeard from 2015 is smarter than le greek that lived BC :DDDDDDD

>>375213
a pea shaped iron ball will still fall faster than a sheet of paper if you drop both of the eifeltower.
checkmate renaissance

Heavier objects fall faster in a vacuum.

That's because the heavier object exerts its own gravitational pull. Gravity is proportional to mass, and the heavier object will also pull the object it is falling to slightly closer to itself.

The lighter object exerts less of it's own energy, and while force, mass acceleration to the object it is falling to are the same as the heavier object, the gravity of the smaller mass is weaker, and the object it falls to does not move towards the lighter object with as much force, even though the mass of the object it is falling to remains the same.

So a heavier object actually does fall faster than a lighter object even in a vacuum.

>>375255
>The lighter object exerts less of it's own energy
Fuck, I meant exerts less of it's own gravity.

>>375252
>checkmate renaissance
You're the one arguing Renaissance fallacies.

I just gave you an example of something lighter falling faster than something heavier. This disproves the theory that heavier things fall faster.

>It's okay when Newton does mistakes
>but not Aristotle!

>>375277
That whole standing on shoulders quote of Newtons though

Einstein on Newtons on Aristotle's?

>>375272
That's because of air friction is greater. You say this like Aristotle was unaware of air friction.

>>375290
Well no shit, air friction is the only reason anything ever falls faster than anything else.

>>375294
That's like citing one of Newton's laws, but saying they're false because they don't account for friction. Intellectually dishonest.

>>375255
But it requires less force to pull the lighter object towards earth than it does the heavier object.

>implying you can deny Aristotle's unparalleled genius

Nevermind the fact he had some missers, he was probably the most intelligent man to have ever walked the Earth.

>>375325
>But it requires less force to pull the lighter object towards earth than it does the heavier object.
You misunderstand. The difference comes from the amount of gravity each object has, and how much it can pull the Earth towards itself. The force exerted on the Earth by the object ( not the force the Earth exerts on the object) varies based on the mass and gravity of the object, yes the mass of the Earth is constant.

>>375307
What?

Everything falls at the same speed in the absence of friction. Friction is the only reason anything ever falls faster than something else. It's not about weight. Heavier objects do not fall faster than lighter objects. Aristotle is wrong.

This isn't fucking hard to understand.

>>374475
To be fair, he wasn't as wrong as a lot of people make out. Lighter objects typically do have a lower terminal velocity. Sure, it's a) only true in-atmosphere and b) a general rule-of-thumb rather than an absolute law, but it's not 100% laughably wrong. Newtonian physics also relies on assumptions and isn't a perfect model of reality.

Aristotle was a genius and probably the GOAT biologist. The problem was, I think, that he was too tempted to give answers when he didn't actually know what the fuck he was talking about.

Like, some fanboys ask him some shit and expect an answer, so Aristotle just makes up some shit on the spot to not disappoint them.

He lacked the character of Socrates who wasn't afraid to admit he didn't know something.

>>375346
You are ignoring the fact that every object with mass has gravity. The object's gravity works on the planet just as the planet's gravity works on the object.

Also Aristotle's natural state of rest was really describing the second law of thermodynamics.

Well, he attempted to formulate different fields of philosophy and gave his take on them as well. Basically, he tried to establish a canon of knowledge based on his thoughts, just like Plato did.
It's testament to Aristotle's ambition and brilliance that he comes under so much scrutiny even now, while people are quick to forgive the mistakes other greek philosophers made.

>>374475
So when did you personally test those three things?

>>375352
>Probably the GOAT biologist

Not Linnaeus or Darwin

>Please leave

>>375346
The point is not that Aristotle was wrong. The point is the people decrying Aristotle for being a moron are also wrong, and Aristotle didn't even have the benefit of someone to teach him proper physics.

>>375355
That's retarded, the object's gravitational pull is completely negligible and there are billions of other objects exercising similar pull at the same time.

>>375367
>muh Darwin

Fuck off Dawkins

Force vectors are straight and linear for the most part. What causes curvature in motion is changes either in the direction or the magnitude of the various force vectors acting on an object.

>>375346
>Heavier objects do not fall faster than lighter objects

Actually, if air resistance is present, they do. Initially, the resistive forces will be equal on two outwardly-identical objects. However, force = mass*acceleration, so a object with less mass and the same force experiences greater acceleration (or in this case, deceleration). Hence it accelerates more slowly, reaches a lower terminal velocity and therefore falls slower.

Thought experiment: wrap a bowling ball in paper. Form a second paper ball, same size, same shape, same type of paper, but with no bowling ball inside. Drop both off a rooftop on a windless day. The heavier object will hit the ground first. Because the hollow paper ball is so light, the air resistance has a much greater effect.

>>375372
>billions of other objects exercising similar pull at the same time.
Yes, and?

>completely negligible
It still causes a difference, even if negligible. You failed to apply the laws of gravity correctly. They are not equal, even if they are so close they might as well be. There was a gap in your thinking even when you're so quick to attempt to point out another's flaws.

>>375373
>implying Dawkins wouldn't consider himself the greatest biologist

>>375383
Air resistance = friction.

>>375373
>Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) – Greek philosopher and polymath
Euclid (c. 325 – 265 BC) – Greek mathematician
Moses (c 1391 – 1271 BC) A key figure of Jewish / Christian history gave 10 Commandments of Old Testament
Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882) –Scientist who proposed and popularised theory of evolution.

Some random 100 most influential
http://www.biographyonline.net/people/100-most-influential.html

Still mentions Aristotle for influence in fields other than biology, I'd say that this suggests Darwin overall had a greater influence on biology.

>>375386
He doesn't

t. someone who doesn't think dawkins is a good philosopher, but he is a good biologist

>>375391
>Heavier objects do not fall faster than lighter objects
>unless air is present, then weight becomes a factor and they do
>and in pretty much any relevant scenario air resistance would be present
>which would makes Aristotle's rule valid, not universally, but still valid

Calling him wrong is like calling Newton wrong because f = ma doesn't hold up at relativistic speeds.

This thread is embarrassingly bad.

There's two kinds of people that make up most posters in it:
>1. people who get their entire knowledge of history off simple jpgs (or in this case a powerpoint slide of six bullet points)
>2. people who actually are well read but haven't been formally educated and so believe bizarre things that don't stand up to basic scrutiny (e.g. defining when philosophy started by having a poor definition of 'philosophy')

OP said some ridiculous things and nobody has even called him on it in over 100 posts.

Examples:
>Assumes the universe works a certain way.
Incorrect. His Physics was based on both observation and reason.
>Never bothers to test it.
Incorrect. He studied the natural world carefully, to the point where some of his studies on plants and animals are still cited in their field.
>Takes experiments by Galileo to finally disprove him
Technically incorrect as well (Galileo is a minor figure in science who didn't accomplish much at all, but he's a major figure in the politics of science for reasons). The implication though is that people blindly took Physics as fact, when the reality is that its claims were being considered throughout history. The reason it took so long for a better model to emerge wasn't because people just assumed Aristotle was right, but that his arguments were so rational and persuasive, and fit the data of the natural world so well, that it took that long for a better model to be developed.

Just a further point, the reason for the incorrect beliefs that OP makes is because modern political elements tried to discredit everything pre-Enlightenment as a dark age and superstition and idiocy.

>>375420
/thread

Here's the famous footage of the Apollo 15 astronaut that dropped a hammer & feather on the moon to prove Galileo's theory that in the absence of atmosphere, objects will fall at the same rate regardless of mass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

>>375434
4chan is faggot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

>>375434
What do you hope to prove with that video?

>>375420
>Incorrect. He studied the natural world carefully
Testing a theory requires experimentation. He just observed and drew conclusions from his observations, he never tested them.

>>375509
Why are you trying to apply 16th logic to a guy who was before the year zero?

>>375553
There is no year zero tripfag

>>375420
>Incorrect. He studied the natural world carefully

That doesn't mean he tested his obviously wrong hypotheses about physics.

> Technically incorrect as well

Look it up, it is a well known fact that Galileo was the first one to demonstrate mass doesn't affect fall speed

heavier objects within human perception default to heaving a faster terminal velocity than our immediate perception of light objects

>>374671
>implying that the air being pushed down by the helium balloon moving up doesn't fall as fast as the lead ball
nice try Aristotle

>>374572
How can his Ethics be outdated?

>>377117
Compare

>Killing is wrong because only the moon God can take life

To

>Killing is wrong because society would be destabilized if it became common

The subjective part of ethics can't be outdated, but the factual parts of ethics can

>>374620
No. I'm not sure if this is an elaborate troll, or you never made it out of High School physics. Speed is linked to the acceleration (change in speed), not force. The reason why heavier objects often fall faster than lighter objects is because lighter objects have more air resistance which slows them down. In a vacuum, air resistance would not exist and all objects would fall at the same speed regardless of mass.

>>377127
Neither of those standpoints are outdated. Both are adhered to today.

>>374620
>weight
It's mass, retard. Weight doesn't factor into gravity. Weight is a product of the interaction of a gravitational pull (from a very large object like the moon) with the pulled object's mass.

In a void, objects all fall at the same time. It's air resistance that stands in the way and makes the denser objects sink faster, as if air was just a very thin liquid solution.

>>374692

...Unless you're in a room where air resistance is not a thing. Then both fall at the same speed.

>>377143
Belief in a moon God is outdated

>>375255
All of this is wrong.

>>377208
Prove it

>>377226
Prove heavy things fall at the same speed as light things

>>377237

Newton already did.

All else being equal, two objects fall at the same exact speed.

If you argue against this you are retarded.

>>377257
>If you argue against this you are retarded

If you argue for the moon God you are retarded

>>377314

It's more likely than heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones :^)

>>377326
>It's more likely

Prove it

>>374475
How could this fucking man in
>300 B.C.
Know the difference between Gravity and Air Resistance? Could he fucking go to space? Fuck off OP, you can't pull people out of vaccuums. He was a man of his time and so will you

jesus fuck

>>377361
I wouldn't say the backlash is against the classic thinkers themselves, but against the people who hold the classics to the highest possible standard.

>>377366
The only people who do that are continentals who try and appeal to authority by quoting as many classical thinkers as possible (always out of context).

The real issue here is why anyone cares about them

>>377139
>hasnt read aristotle's on the heavens
>is unaware he is breathing air
>air that causes friction when an object moves through it

>>377164
>>377184
>weight is proportional to mass
>oh my god
>in the void meme
>its true except when its not

Oh yeah, Aristotle is wrong, you just have to fly to the moon first to have a celestial body without an atmosphere to drop shit on.

What fucking morons.

>>374475
Four Causes and the Prime Mover BTFO Plato's dumbass "World of Forms" theory.

>>375401
Aristotle basically founded biology, as well as half of the other of what are now areas of science. He was that influential.

>>377481
>Oh yeah, Aristotle is wrong, you just have to fly to the moon first to have a celestial body without an atmosphere to drop shit on

Galileo showed he was wrong with nothing more than balls and a ramp

>>377490
Those things aren't even related, nor are either of them relevant today

>>377670
>Aristotle basically founded biology, as well as half of the other of what are now areas of science.

Please be trolling, no one is this stupid

>>375509
Yes he did

He fucking INVENTED the scientific method you ultra cunt

>>377127
Aristotle's Ethics are hugely influential today, fuck more than any other thinker of his time his theory probably obtains.

>>377679
He literally did

>>377672
OH YEAH LETS JUST ADD IN ROTATIONAL INTERTIA NOTHING CAN GO WRONG.

Fun fact, if you do Galileo's experiments with two balls, the same size, same mass, except one is hollow like a bowling ball, and the other is solid and made of a less dense material, they will not go down the ramp at the same speed.

Second fun fact, Galileo's balls were not the same size, so not he did not prove that two objects identical in all dimensions except weights fall at the same speed.

It sure is edgy in here.
>Implying all philosophies/sciences we currently hold won't be laughed at by edgy high schoolers in 500 years.
>At least Aristotle's name will continue to be mentioned for another 1000 years while everyone in this thread's name will be forgotten in 100 years.
>At least Aristotle pursued intellectual achievement instead of criticizing others while contributing nothing.
Seriously fuck off.

>>374475
>objects fall at the same speed
>in the void
>which aristotle postulated did not exist on earth
>and which does not naturally occur on earth
>b-b-but they fall the same speed on the moon
>have to fly to the moon for this to apply to anything
>a heavier object on earth sill falls faster than a light object on the moon

>>377721
>Galileo's balls were not the same size

Yes they were

>>377747
Objects fall at the same speed on Earth too dickhead. Force due to gravity and acceleration due to gravity are two different things.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Free-Fall-and-Air-Resistance

>>377747
>a heavier object on earth sill falls faster than a light object on the moon

That's because you've changed the planet you moron. Also Aristotle was wrong about other things too like >>374931

>>377731
>At least Aristotle's name will continue to be mentioned for another 1000 years while everyone in this thread's name will be forgotten in 100 years

So will Hitler's name

The autism in this thread is absolutely off the charts. Is /his/ the new /b/?

>>377765
And yours wont

>>377481
You know that physics is about universal laws, right?

>>377680
>the scientific method

How exactly can sitting in a chair and making shit up about the world considered science? He didn't even bother to test his ideas, the CORE idea of science

>>377782
Yes he did. That was what separated his study from those before him

>>377765
And Ceaser
And Stalin
And Genghis Khan
And countless other historical figures
What point are you trying to make here??

>>377762

>That's because you've changed the planet you moron.
No, it's the
>in the void
memesters that changed the "planet"

>>377795
That just because he will be remembered doesn't mean he did anything good, in fact I would argue his net influence was a negative thing

>>377781
Physics means knowledge of nature.

>>377759
>cant even read his own article about air friction

>>377807
"Good" being completely subjective... So I guess you're right, just keep in minnd other people might find his work to be "good" and in their eyes you're wrong.

>>377807
>in fact I would argue his net influence was a negative thing

For fucking inventing/codifying science and logic for the first time?

You are dumb as pig shit if you think so.

>>377817
>just keep in minnd other people might find his work to be "good" and in their eyes you're wrong.

Well those people won't understand physics so I don't care about them

>>377826
>science

This meme again?

How exactly can sitting in a chair and making shit up about the world considered science? He didn't even bother to test his ideas, the CORE idea of science

>>377816
I read it and in fact understand it.

"all objects (regardless of their mass) free fall with the same acceleration - 9.8 m/s/s. This particular acceleration value is so important in physics that it has its own peculiar name - the acceleration of gravity - and its own peculiar symbol - g"

Air resistance is a completely different FORCE, just like tension or friction. It has NOTHING to do with the FACT that everything falls at the same rate regardless of mass. Take a fucking physics class sometime you nitwit.

>>377828
Thise people probably understand historical context. He didn't understand physics for the same reason he didn't understand binomial theorem... Because it wasn't a thing yet.

>>377847
>He didn't understand physics for the same reason he didn't understand binomial theorem... Because it wasn't a thing yet.

He didn't understand any science because he wasn't the inventor of science

>>377837
>Air resistance is a completely different FORCE, just like tension or friction. It has NOTHING to do with the FACT that everything falls at the same rate regardless of mass. Take a fucking physics class sometime you nitwit.
Yes, a guy in with a parachute falls the same speed as a guy without a parachute. Thank you modern physics! Air resistance has nothing to do with the speed at which an object falls!

>>377852
You make no claim in this comment

>>377861
Air resistance is a fucking force.
Acceleration due to gravity is not a force.
You don't understand why you're wrong because you don't even understand the words you're arguing. Poke a hole in the parachute and watch him fall at the same rate ie, remove the opposing force.

How can anyone say his ethics are outdated? Isn't Aristotle the source for Virtue Ethics?

>>377837
>everything falls at the same rate regardless of mass

But that's not true. As other anons have pointed out, if air resistance is a factor, mass *will* have an effect on the object's velocity. Ergo, Aristotle was correct, within the entirely reasonable caveat that air must be present.

>>377892
Aristotle's arguments uses descriptive or factual premises to derive conclusions about what is good. Such arguments are outdated since the discovery of the is-ought gap.

>>377892
Absolutely.

The thing is, because he was the first writer to actually sit down and codify FUCKING EVERYTHING (as well as the develop theories according to experimentation buisness), half of academia itself you can say he is the source for. In reality, a lot of what he writes may well have been commonly accepted, but when it comes to, say, treating the study of animals as a discipline, Aristotle is the originator.

You could say virtue ethics was the common-sense ethical system of ancient greece. Plato was probably the more controversial figure when it came to ethics.

File: u2l3e2.gif (4KB, 364x304px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 364x304px

>>377913
>if air resistance is a factor, mass *will* have an effect on the object's velocity

No. Pic related

>>377919
Wikipedia surfers plz go.

>>377913
Everything accelerates at the same rate.
Air resistance is an opposing force. Friction, tension, weight, normal force are all forces. The first step is understanding Newton's 2nd and 3rd LAWS. Not theories, not rules, laws. Understanding the difference between accelerations and forces helps. Stop samefagging.

>>377919
It's genuinely hilarious how wrong you are, about almost everything in this post. 10/10 if it was on purpose.

The is-ought gap isn't a problem for Aristotle at all, on any level.

>People who peruse /his/ in their leisure hours don't even know elementary physics

What a surprise.

>>377930
>The first step is understanding Newton's 2nd and 3rd LAWS. Not theories, not rules, laws.

Thinking scientific laws are more substantiated than scientific theories is a common misconception.

>>377946
It goes directly against his function argument.

>Reason is a property of man
>Therefore man ought to value reason

Aristotle falls right into the is-ought trap

>>377956
The problem is you are using your own definition of "good" and not Aristotle's.

>>377951
It really puts things in perspective. Like when you're arguing with someone and thinking "can he possibly be this stupid?". Yes. He can. He doesn't even know physics yet he will argue for Aristotle's physics

>>377960
I'm not using any definitions. Hume showed that all ethics are subjective, so trying to move from an "is" to an "ought" like Aristotle does is an outdated idea

>>377951
Law are testable/observable. Theories are not.

>>377961
That's not being stupid, that's just being ignorant. There is a difference.

Plenty of people here never studied physics or paid attention in school it seems.

>>377964
So you are willfully ignoring Aristotle's argument and just picking sentences out of it in isolation?

Aristotle doesn't say any of the things you are saying he says. Fuck, neither does Hume either.

>>377966
No no NO! This is such a common misconception. Germ theory isn't testable or observable? Come on. Read this http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

>>377961
High school physics at that. The jokes on me as I'm probably arguing with an 8th grader who is angry he has to do a report on Aristotle.

>>377977
>Aristotle doesn't say any of the things you are saying he says.

Okay, then summarize his function argument and explain how it doesn't move from "is" to "ought" as I have shown

>>377981
Splitting hairs. This is 4chan not science syposium. I did not claim my def was absolute. Its just a simple summary, of course there are addendums and exceptions.

>>377989
Again, the bit you are missing out (presumably because you are a wikipedia surfer who maybe did one module in Philosophy), is Aristotle's definition of "the good".

If you are not interested in the terms that a philosopher is using, why even bother reading them? It sounds like you are just interested in reading them as a say to make yourself feel clever.

>>377966
What about heliocentric theory

>>377966
wtf

You mean scientific hypothesis are testable.

Scientific theories are meant to have testable hypothesis: this is their predictive power, that together with explanatory power, dictates how adequate a theory is.

As for observable, that refers to the effects, stuff that happens. The rules that govern effects, the stuff that happens, aren't observed but inferred from observations.

>>378002
>Again, the bit you are missing out, is Aristotle's definition of "the good".

Which he derives from the function argument. Which falls for the is-ought trap.

>>377989
I'm not wrong unless you prove I'm wrong...
Which logical fallacy is that?

>>378015
I've already shown how I'm right though here >>377956

>>378012
No, he doesn't. In fact Aristotle doesn't even give an argument for his definition of "the good", he just states it and moves on. You can see him as categorically opposed to Plato here,he's not interested in platonic ideals, or a universal good like you seem to think he was invoking.

>>378005
Observable. What is a telescope. Not sure what point is...

>>378020
Actually thats a lie, he does give a sort of pseudo argument for it by introducing the idea.

I'll give you a hint: It's the first fucking line of the Nicomachean Ethics.

>>378016
I've lost track of who's arguing what desu. This thread has gone from dumb to full autism.

>>378021
You're not very interested in the history of science are you? Fuck. Why are you even in this thread.

>>378031
In this thread because someone tried to argue that objects dont fall with the same acceleration which is complete nonsense.

>>378021
That it is a theory not a law...

>>378009
A theory is a summary/product of a hypothesis, so yes.

>>378054
I think you got hypothesis and theory switched around. Read that again.

>>378031
I have a STEM degree (Chemistry) btw. I don't follow the points you are trying to make because they are convoluted. You're just spliting hairs over subjective arguments and trying to "win" by contradiction. You're entitled to believe whatever you want, just don't expect everyone else to buy it, especially if its just plain wrong.

>>378067
That was my first reply to you in this thread.

I guess its just curious how you can be so interested in one field and not at all in others

>>378066
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."

>confirmed through observation and experimentation, in other words, confirmed through hypothesis.

>>378085
Excuse you, the theory proposes testable hypothesis. The hypothesis are the product of the theory so >>378054 was switched around.

>>378048
Not a law because it doesn't really apply to anything other than itself. You don't use heliocentric "principles" to calculate anything else or observe anything else... You're right in what you are saying but again I was just saying "in general" laws are testable/observable over and over again regardless of circumstances and theories aren't. There is definitely much more to it and I could find 6 examples off the top of my head such as you did that contradict this but the point I was making is generally valid. >>378073

>>378104
Not that anon, but are you using the colloquial meaning of theory?

Pretty sure you develop hypotheses, test said hypotheses, if after a lot of testing the hypotheses hold out then you would consider the hypothesis to be a theory

>>374475
Guys he was right about the mass but it only effect objecta on a stupidly large scale you don't fall into a black hole the at the same speed as the Earth

>>377930
1) I'm not samefagging
2) I'm a mech eng graduate, you patronising cunt
3) The fact you're arguing over meme semantics suggests you have no idea what you're talking about, nobody cares about laws vs theories vs rules
4) Drop a hollow paper ball and a bowling ball off the top of a roof. Wrap the bowling ball in paper so both have the same size, shape and surface texture. The bowling ball will hit the ground first. Mass *does* have an effect with regards to how air resistance affects velocity

>>377924
See >>378144

>>377924
That doesn't even begin to take air resistance into account, which was the central point of my entire post, you fucking retard. Can you even read?

>>378124
No, I mean the theory is the conceptual framework on which hypothesis are grounded.

An hypothesis like "eating nails makes you live longer" can be tested empirically, but nobody will bother to test if you don't have an explanation as to why eating nails would increase lifespan. The theory would be corroborated by the hypothesis being tested with the predicted effects being observed.

>>378163
But if it was being scientifically tested you don't necessarily want an assumption about the result, wouldn't it be better to test

How does nail consumption influence longevity?

ITT: people who've taken high school physics mistakenly assume they understood it.

>>378125
see >>377924

>>378176
>How does nail consumption influence longevity?
The explanation is what the theory offers.

>you don't necessarily want an assumption about the result, wouldn't it be better to test
You generally already have assumptions about the results, whether your assumptions are grounded in a theory or in common sense.

Now, you CAN begin a study not having any idea what you'll find. Then you'll have working hypothesis but these are just there until you actually have more data for further, more in-depth studies.

>>378160
see >>378160

>>378192
That diagram ignores air resistance.

>>378219
Air resistance is negligible.

>>374508
How do you make free fall conditions without technology?

>>378144
Mass affects weight, a force, not an acceleration.
Mass affects air resistance, also a force, not an acceleration.
Acceleration due to gravity is the same for both objects when you remove the opposing forces.
Nice degree you got there bub.

>>378219
Because air resistance is a different fucking force

>>378225
Imagine two objects, one light and one heavier than the other one, are connected to each other by a string. Drop this system of objects from the top of a tower. If we assume heavier objects do indeed fall faster than lighter ones (and conversely, lighter objects fall slower), the string will soon pull taut as the lighter object retards the fall of the heavier object. But the system considered as a whole is heavier than the heavy object alone, and therefore should fall faster. This contradiction leads one to conclude the assumption is false.

File: Screen_Shot_2015_12_06_at_1.31.04_AM.png (7KB, 46x30px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 46x30px

>>377721
You touched his balls before gay boi?

>>378224
Not for Aristotle's question. Light objects will fall slower, because air resistance affects their velocity more due to their lesser mass.

>>377882
>Acceleration due to gravity is not a force.
>gravity is magic

>>378224
>Air resistance is negligible.
>the air resistance of a motherfucking elephant is negligible
This is the greatest thread. Thanks, guys.

>>378231
>Acceleration due to gravity is the same for both objects when you remove the opposing forces.

But Aristotle never said "acceleration due to gravity isn't equal for both objects". He claimed that heavier objects fell faster. And he was correct, because air resistance will cause a greater deceleration for lighter objects, all other factors bring equal.

You're wrong because you haven't understood Aristotle's position. Not because your physics is wrong in and of itself. But that still makes you wrong.

>>378289
I'm new to this thread.

What does air resistance have to do with mass? I thought it had to do with surface area? Like... That's why a parachute is shaped the way it is.

>>378304
>the air resistance of a motherfucking elephant is negligible

Assume both objects have the same shape

>>378245
And? Aristotle never said "oh, and I'm only talking about the force of gravity, ignore all the other stuff". He said heavier objects fall faster. And he was right, because air resistance has that effect.

>>378315
Parachutes need air resistance to work. They wouldn't slow you down if you were falling onto the Moon, for example, because there all that surface area of yours would pushing against squat.

>>378315
Air resistance, as a force, does not directly depend on mass. It depends on the shape of an object (which I'm guessing you meant by surface area) and its velocity.

Acceleration due to air resistance, however, does depend on mass, because the acceleration produced by any force depends on the object's mass.

Basically this thread is a bunch of people misunderstanding Aristotle's position. It's entirely true that, if you ignore air resistance, gravity alone produces the same acceleration regardless of mass. However, Aristotle never claimed he was ignoring air resistance. People are giving the right answer to the wrong question.

File: 1448570893407.jpg (34KB, 500x350px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x350px

>>374475
Honestly he's pretty bad. The only reason he's probably the worse is that his philosophy is what the church followed.

I mean can we really blame him though? Those were pretty alright observations for some guy in ancient Greece. Sure now it seems silly because we know you should only follow what your experiment produces but should we really shit on him so hard?

>>378289
They fall at the same rate. Air resitance is an opposing force. Newton's 2nd law, A=sum of forces/mass. 9.81m/s^2 is the acceleration due to grav of anything you drop on Earth.

>>374648
If starting from resting then both objects would travel with an acceleration of roughly -9.81m/s^2 if you disregard factors such as air resistance etc

>>378304
Lolololol. There is "G", force due to gravity and "g" acceleration due to gravity. Open a fucking book. Nobody said anything about magic peabrain.

>>378355
>9.81m/s^2 is the acceleration due to grav of anything you drop on Earth.

But we're talking about actual acceleration, not theoretical acceleration if air resistance didn't exist.

>>378304
Knowing how stupid you sound to people who have learned high school level physics... Priceless

>>378373
But you have no idea how stupid you look to people with degrees

:^)

>>378344
But Aristotle's law isn't a good law as far as physics go. It only applies in a really insignificant portion of the universe, so it's not universal. And the effect can be better explained by more precise laws. The laws of physics are universal and fundamental.

>>378304
>Acceleration due to gravity is not a force

Gravity is a phenomenon by which objects with mass are attracted to each other.
Weight is a force produced when an object with mass is inside a gravitational field.
Acceleration due to gravity is an acceleration, i.e. a rate of change of velocity.

Acceleration isn't a force, it's the effect of a force.

>>378310
Hahahaha. I see what you're saying now. I still feel like you're subjugating what "falls" means but sure. I mean fall as in accelerate towards the Earth, you're saying falls as in time it takes object A to go from origin to ground being quicker. Just keep in mind this only holds true when air resistance is a factor. A person and a car will hit at the same time when dropped off a 1000 foot cliff. So will a 300kg boulder or anything for that matter that will not have a lot of air resistance, and in those cases the bigger or heavier objects will not "fall" quicker.

File: aristotle_motion.png (53KB, 1197x1033px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1197x1033px

Is everyone gonna just ignore the fact that Aristotle had no idea how motion worked at all? Pic related

>>378379
Depends what field you're in. Engineering is full of laws which are literally never correct, but give a reasonable approximation under everyday conditions. So is thermodynamics. Some areas of geology define acids in terms of silicates, which is clearly an extremely narrow definition, but it's not wrong as far as the geologist within that field is concerned. You could argue that all of Newton's work is technically bunk, because he didn't understand how mass changes at high speeds/gravities and thus only applies to an insignificant portion of the universe.

Certainly, Aristotle's law doesn't have a place in modern physics. But considering we're talking way back when all these different subjects were amalgamated together, you can't just arbitrarily decide to use the standards of modern physics and thus proclaim him objectively wrong.

>>378321
I see your point but its not true unless air resistance is a factor. Drop a 30kg brick and a 300kg boulder off a 5 story building sometime. The heavier object will hit at the same time as the less heavy object.

>>378344
>the acceleration produced by any force depends on the object's mass.

But doesn't the force change in proportion to the mass such that acceleration is the same? Like the math in the elephant pic shows

>>378377
Except i have a Chem degree which required a year of Physics and a year of Eng Physics as prerequisites which is where I learned Newton's laws and how to calc sum of all forces and the dif between force of grav and acc of grav.

>>378421
Yes. That is why this argument is going nowhere.

>>378453
Well if acceleration is the same then Aristotle is wrong

>>378421
It depends which force you're talking about. Gravitational force is proportional to mass; therefore the mass cancels out when you plug the force into f=ma, giving you a constant acceleration. Air resistance is not directly proportional to mass (it depends on a bunch of factors like surface shape, roughness, etc), so there's no cancelling out when you calculate the resistive acceleration, so ass becomes a factor.

As the overall velocity depends on both accelerations, the fact mass doesn't cancel for one means overall, mass does have an effect, and the lighter an object is, the further it deviates from 9.80665...

File: DSC03916.jpg (125KB, 1211x1210px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1211x1210px

>>378271
/thread

>>378443
Unfortunately, you clearly learned nothing about air resistance.

>>378460
>Air resistance is not directly proportional to mass (it depends on a bunch of factors like surface shape, roughness, etc), so there's no cancelling out when you calculate the resistive acceleration, so ass becomes a factor.

From what you just wrote, it would seem mass does not become a factor, but instead (as you wrote) the factors are surface, shape, roughness, etc.

>Gravitational force is proportional to mass

>>378477
>it would seem mass does not become a factor, but instead (as you wrote) the factors are surface, shape, roughness, etc.

Become a factor in what? Remember, you have force (which is produced by either gravity or air being in the way), and acceleration (which is produced by a force). Mass *is* a factor in gravity-force, and therefore *is not* a factor in gravity-acceleration. However, mass *is not* a factor in air-resistance-force, and therefore *is* a factor in air-resistance-acceleration.

Recall that the formula for switching between force and acceleration is f=ma. This is where the mass either cancels out (for gravity) or comes into play (for air resistance).

What the hell is going on in here?

>>378504
All else being equal, would two objects of different mass fall at the same speed on earth?

>>378512
With no air resistance both objects would fall at the same rate.

>>378527
Would mass affect air resistance, all else being equal? If so, in what way would it affect it?

>>378533
The terminal velocity for heavier objects is higher if you consider air resistance.
The terminal velocity is prop to sqrt(m)

The formula for acceleration:

a = g - R/m

Where:

a = total net acceleration
g = 9.80665, the acceleration downwards due to gravity
R = upwards force of air resistance
m = mass of object

As you can see, the larger m is, the smaller R/m becomes and the closer the acceleration is to g. However, for light objects, R/m is still significant, and thus light objects fall slower.

>>378527
>on earth
>ON EARTH
>WHERE THERE IS AIR

>>378572
That's an entirely reasonable assumption. Or do you throw a hissy fit every time somebody brings out Newtonian physics because

>ASSUMING NON-RELATIVISTIC SPEEDS

>>378533
Objects have drag coefficients. Typically the exact means of determining drag force is just an approximation. For example you may have a linear equation for relatively slow speeds but gain higher order terms as velocity increases to very very high speeds. I'm not 100% on what kind of approximations are fitted into the calculation of drag, but generally I believe two objects of the same size and shape would have the same drag coefficients regardless of mass.

So of two spheres of equal size and shape but of different masses, the more massive sphere would hit the ground first.

>>378572
What is your point? I was just trying to teach you all physics.

>>378589
>I believe two objects of the same size and shape would have the same drag coefficients regardless of mass.

>So of two spheres of equal size and shape but of different masses, the more massive sphere would hit the ground first.

That doesn't make sense. How could acceleration due to gravity and drag be the same yet one hits the ground at a different time?

>>378412
How could Aristotle be this stupid?

>>378597
Finally someone with some sense ITT

A HEAVIER OBJECT FALLS FASTER TO THE SURFACE OF A PLANET THAN A LIGHTER OBJECT.

IF THE EARTH HAD NO ATMOSPHERE AND YOU DROPPED THE MOON STRAIGHT DOWN ON THE EARTH IT WOULD FALL FASTER THAN IF YOU REPEATED THE EXPERIMENT AND DROPPED A PEBBLE FROM THE SAME HEIGHT.

THATS BECAUSE EARTHS MASS TIMES THE MOONS GRAVITATIONAL FORCE IS GREATER THAN THE THE EARTHS MASS TIMES THE PEBBLES GRAVITATIONAL FORCE. SO THE MOON PULLS THE EARTH TO ITSELF AT THE SAME TIME THE EARTH PULLS THE MOON TOWARDS ITSELF. WHEN YOU CHANGE IT TO THE PEBBLE THE GRAVITY OF THE PEBBLE IS MUCH LESS BUT THE MASS OF THE EARTH IS THE SAME.

IN THE VOID FAGGOTS BTFO

>>378597
>>378610
Both wrong. For fuck's sake, at least learn highschool level mechanics before mouthing off.

The FORCE would be the same regardless of mass. Therefore the ACCELERATION would be different, because FORCE = MASS * ACCELERATION

Jesus Christ.

>>378597
>>378610
>i dont understand how force vectors work
Draw a fucking force diagram fucking humanities nerds.

>>378619
>The FORCE would be the same regardless of mass

Wrong. Gravity's force increases with increased mass

File: drag_no_mass.png (21KB, 744x172px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 744x172px

Mass has no influence on drag. So all things equal, except mass, objects will fall at the same rate. As in accordance with the math in this post >>377924

>>378592
Your statement was completely irrelevant because the post you responded to said ON EARTH as a premise, but you felt the need to take it out of context and make it not on earth or in a completely artificial vacuum environment created on Earth. How retarded are you?

>>378619
no u

Gravitational mass = inertial mass, meaning that while the force is greater, the inertia (resistance to motion) is proportionally greater for a more massive object. Therefore, acceleration, and thus time of descent, is equal for all objects (neglecting air resistance)

t. literal aerospace engineer

>>378625
>drag coefficient
>motherfucking DRAG COEFFICIENT

We're talking about AIR RESISTANCE, you DENSE MOTHERFUCKER

AND IMMA CAPS LOCK CRUISE CONTROL THIS MESSAGE INTO YOUR FACE UNTIL YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND IT

>>378635
F=ma is not how you calculate the drag of an object. It doesn't even take into account surface area. The real formula is here >>378628

>>378632
>neglecting air resistance

THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD IS THAT WE'RE ***NOT*** NEGLECTING AIR RESISTANCE

JESUS H CHRIST ON A GOLD-PLATED POGO STICK

I'm glad I went for mech eng, clearly aerospace engineers can't fucking read.

>>378628
The shape of the object has an influence of drag you illiterate fuck. So all things equal, the net force acting on the object is greater because the force of air friction is proportional to speed and shape, but the force from gravity is proportional to mass.

O,99999999...=1

>>378646
>The shape of the object has an influence of drag

Ah, okay. No point in deploying the parachute then to change its shape. It produces the same amount of drag when in your backpack.

>>378642
It is, however, how you move from drag-force to drag-acceleration.

This is goddamn basic pre-university shit, how can people simultaneously not know it and still be cocksure enough to argue the point?

>>378628
THATS AN EQUATION FOR DRAG FORCE YOU ILLITERATE FUCK. DRAW A FUCKING FORCE DIAGRAM. ACCELERATION IS NOT FORCE.

>>378651
Are you literally illiterate? I mean can you actually fucking read?

>>378651
He just said drag depends on shape. Deploying your parachute changes its shape, and therefore its drag. Idiot.

>>378663
>>378662
oops, misread. Sorry

>>378628
That's an equation for force, not acceleration. You subtract it from the force (not acceleration) calculated by multiplying mass times gravity. You are a retard.

>>378654
>being this mad that you got shown to be wrong

Sorry bud

>>378597
It's a drag coefficient, not a force.

A heavier object has a greater force downward because it has more mass being pulled towards the Earth. This added force however is cancelled out by the fact that that added mass makes it harder to accelerate the object. A lighter object is pulled with less force but resists acceleration less because it has less mass. That is why two objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum.

Add in drag force however and you it upsets that perfect symmetry. Both have the same drag force but the lighter object with it's weaker pull downward has less force downward to spare. So a light object being pulled down by a force of 3 newtons reaches a terminal velocity when the drag reaches 3 newtons upward. A heavy object of 7 newtons downward reaches a terminal velocity of 7 newtons. Drag is dictated by velocity, so a higher drag for the heavier object means it must be moving faster than the lighter object, it has a higher terminal velocity.

>>378673
>That's an equation for force, not acceleration.

There is a positive relation between these two things, increased force means increased acceleration for the same mass

>>378628
"ACCELERATION" is the rate at which objects change velocity

"FORCE" is a vector quantity which produces ACCELERATION according to the formula FORCE = mass * ACCELERATION

Therefore, when calculating drag, you use that formula to estimate the FORCE. You then plus the FORCE into FORCE = mass * ACCELERATION to obtain the ACCELERATION, therefore making mass a factor in ACCELERATION.

Do you like the way I write FORCE and ACCELERATION in big letters, just to be absolutely clear you can tell between the two? Because I can see you're having difficulty with the concept.

>>378683
>>378674
Draw the fucking force diagram and calculate net force acting to accelerate the object. Jesus Christ.

>>378682
*reaches a terminal velocity at 7 newtons

>>378682
> That is why two objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum.

No, see
>>378617

>in the void faggots btfo

An object with greater mass will reach it's terminal velocity (aka the gravitational acceleration due to force of gravity) faster than a lighter object due to air resistance, but given enough time the lighter object would reach the same velocity (assuming the objects are similar in every aspect except mass).

>>378683
There's a positive relationship between me and your mother you fucking cocksucker.

Increased force means increased acceleration *PROPORTIONAL TO MASS*. Therefore, when switching from force to acceleration, mass becomes a factor, and greater mass = less deceleration.

>>378698
No one said we were talking about celestial mechanics.

>>378476
I did but am clearly disputing that it pertains to the argument of this thread. The argument in this thread is a "heavier" object "falls" quicker. A 500kg boulder and a 100kg boulder will fall at the same rate because air resistance is not that big of a factor. Thats all I'm saying. The difference between a feather and a brick is due to air resistance, not heavier objects falling quicker as proved by the heavier boulder falling at the same rate as the other boulder.

>>378682
>Both have the same drag force

Won't the drag force change as the heavier object begins to move faster than the lighter object?

>>378699
>but given enough time the lighter object would reach the same velocity (assuming the objects are similar in every aspect except mass).

Wrong. An object with greater mass, yet identical in all other characteristics (like drag coefficient) will have a higher terminal velocity, so no.

Why do all you idiots pretend like you're smarter than Aristotle when you didn't even come up with these laws, someone taught them to you, and then you can't even apply them correctly.

>>378659
<B=80
<A=80

Does that fucking mean <C is 20? I really want to solve this but I feel this would only waste my time

>>378699
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75942/terminal-velocity-of-two-equally-shaped-sized-objects-with-different-weights

Larger mass means larger terminal velocity. Remember that terminal velocity isn't reached until the drag equals the weight. More massive objects have to be going faster for the drag to reach that higher value.

>>378712
>No one said we were talking about celestial mechanics
>discussion about stuff falling on earth
>IN THE VOID MEME
>NOT CELESTIAL

>>378456
He was as was almost every ancient scientist. In fact most scientists today will be proven wrong at some point. We constuct models that work basically until they dont anymore. Then we make new models and continue.

>>378715
Yes, the drag force would increase with velocity. The more massive object would eventually reach a terminal velocity. The terminal velocity of the more massive object would be greater than the less massive object.

This is assuming both objects have the same size and shape.

>>378728
But we don't go hurr durr newton was an idiot because of relativistic speeds

>>378714
>The argument in this thread is a "heavier" object "falls" quicker

And it's been firmly established they do. Obviously the degree of difference will vary depending on the respective masses, but the point is, Aristotle was right, at least while in-atmosphere.

>>378631
It's not irrelevant. It's one of the dumbest things about Aristotle's argument. Of course a feather falls slower than a cannonball, but does a cannonball fall faster than a pin you drop straight down?

Understanding that the feather falls slower because of air, and not because of how things fall, is important and seeing that they would fall the same speed in a vacuum shows this.

Focusing on how things fall in air without taking into consideration air resistance at all is kind of like talking about wind blowing a feather into the air and being amazed that things can fall up.

>>378726
Meme? It's how Newtonian physics is taught. There is no reason to include drag if the student doesn't understand mechanics in a vacuum.

>>378733
>mr i can talk about
>in the void
>but dropping the moon
>in the void
>doesnt count
>even though we were talking about things not
>in the void
>m-muh void

>>378743
It is irrelevant.

The post he responded to was not Aristotle, it was
>>378512
>All else being equal, would two objects of different mass fall at the same speed on earth?

Then he replied IN THE VOID. BECAUSE EARTH IS IN THE VOID.

>>378617
500kg boulder and a 100kg boulder off a 5 story building would hit at the same time. Where and how does the heaviness have anything to do with it now dumbdumb?

>>378733
>drag force would increase with velocity.

Wouldn't these things balance out and cause both objects to fall at the same rate?

>>378757
They would not.

>>378744
>newtonian physics
>dont apply to celestial object
No, you copped out because the moon would fall faster than a pebble IN THE VOID. You failed in applying Newtonian physics by assuming the mass of the heavier object had negligible gravity. And then you copped out with "celestial mechanics". Even though you brought up IN THE VOID which is much more relevant to celestial mechanics than how things fall on Earth.

Just admit your IN THE VOID theory got BTFO.

I always knew 4chan wasn't the smartest group in the world, but so I really hang out on a daily basis with a bunch of people who can't understand ninth grade physics?

What does that say about me?

>>378750
You're right, sorry, but I think it's still relevant.

What's your answer? More specifically, under what circumstances do you think they would not fall the same?

The immediate scenarios I can come up with involve Aristotle not being able to find more than a couple light objects or coming up with some similarly silly environment for things falling, like dropping it from space so that they will always reach terminal velocity.

>>378756
There's too many variables involved, so no, you're wrong.

>>378716

Well, just calculated it and you're correct.

Fortunately I'm just a chemist and not a physicist.

>>378774
The problem is, how do we know if you're one of the people who gets it?

File: b.jpg (92KB, 650x560px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 650x560px

In a way, aren't we all in the void?

>>378736
The. Explain how a bowling ball and a brick dropped from a roof hit the ground at the same time. Or a hammer and a melon. Or a toothbrush and a skateboard.

>>378788
I've got this piece of paper on my wall saying that a pretty good university thinks I get it, so Im pretty confident I do.

>>378777
>More specifically, under what circumstances do you think they would not fall the same?
On earth. Where there is air. Where you are. Because you can breathe. What the fucking premise was. Not fucking IN THE VOID. You do realize air friction also changes the rate of acceleration, not just terminal velocity.

>>378799
Then you should be able to agree than if you dropped the moon onto earth without an atmosphere IN THE VOID, it would hit the ground faster than if you repeated the experiment using a pebble.

>>378779
>too many variables?
There's one variable here. f=m*a. Thats it. A=9.81 in both cases, the F would change in proportion to the mass. Sorry bro thats checkmate

>>378813
Show me a building not in an atmosphere. Or is this some hypothetical though experiment building IN THE VOID

>>377989

" Is" to " ought" is an ok move if you have teleology. It's once you reject teleology that it falls apart.

Here is an example, the term " farmer" denotes someone who produces crops. There for to be a good farmer ( and live up to the definition) they ought to produce crops well. If someone has the end of being a farmer in mind then they ought to do what helps them produce crops. In Aristotelean teleogy the "ought" is never categorical it is always in light of some end. If something is a rational animal- so to live up to such a definition they ought to use their rationality, etc. Given that part of the definition of being a man is being rational, insofar as one is being a man they are going to fit that definition better or worse depending on how well they use their reason and value reason.

Check out MacIntyre's "After Virtue" he gives a very good account of how contemporary people can understand Aristotelian teleology.

Most people who criticize Aristotle haven't read that much of him or done any serious academic study of him. Yes he got a few things wrong. He still got more right than any one on this board ever will.

File: 6e306f943fc864e7ee41a1b3a7f16172.png (957B, 110x51px) Image search: [Google]

957B, 110x51px

>>378813

I'd use the equation for terminal velocity, in atmosphere.

>>378812
When we're dealing with stuff that ol' Aristotle could actually drop, the gravitational force from the dropped objects is so minute that it wouldn't make any measurable difference. The shape of the object would determine the terminal velocity and acceleration, so if he'd actually tested it, the heavier object wouldn't always fall the fastest.

>>378828
The atmosphere/ air resistance would at best give .0000000000001 second difference

>>378801
I'm talking about with air. The premise you just quoted me was
>All else being equal
All else being equal the air resistance will slow down both objects the same amount. What falls faster, a pin made out of lead or a pin made out of copper?

>>378854
I'm not talking about Aristotle, because I'm talking about IN THE VOID. Because all the IN THE VOID faggots are wrong.

>>378877
I skipped right to the bottom of the thread so I've got no idea what you guys are talking about in ALL CAPS.

At first I thought this kid was trolling but now I'm convinced he's just being obtuse. Literally no one is agreeing with you. You have been proven wrong at least 5 times now. Go to bed.

>>378875
>All else being equal the air resistance will slow down both objects the same amount.
But that's not true and if you were cable of doing any of the numerous equations posted in this thread you'd realize you're an idiot. That's because the object with greater mas has a proportionally higher force to counteract the air resistance equation which does not increase with mass.

>>378659
Just start filling in angles and its easy.

>>378881
IN THE VOID

>>378894
That doesn't seem any different from what I said earlier about ridiculous scenarios, like dropping it from space or having infinitesimally accurate measurements. What's the point of requiring it to be on Earth if you can just climb up an infinitely high ancient greek skyscraper to drop things off of?