Why did it take 2000 years for someone to disprove Aristotlean

>>9100268
Simple. If you disprove a theory but you have no replacement or fix then it is pointless. It is not like Aristotle claimed absolute truth.

>>9100268
Newton didn't *disprove* Aristotelian physics, he just extended it. Good read below on this topic.

>I show that Aristotelian physics is a correct and non-intuitive approximation of Newtonian physics in the suitable domain (motion in fluids), in the same technical sense in which Newton theory is an approximation of Einstein's theory. Aristotelian physics lasted long not because it became dogma, but because it is a very good empirically grounded theory. The observation suggests some general considerations on inter-theoretical relations.
Carlo Rovelli - Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look
https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057

>>9100268
one word
E V A N G E L I C A L S

The intelligence of the greeks was the very problem. They were smart enough to come up with a very, very close approximation that fits pretty much every observation.

There was also the fact that a lot of the time between Aristotle and the the modern era was just the Dark Ages and barbarism. It took a long time to work back up to the level of the ancient greeks after the fall of Rome.

>>9100436
Newtonian physics completely contradicts Aristotle. What on earth are you talking about.

ELEPHANT TESTICLES

>>9100888
I recommend you to read the above linked article. I can't summarize it here, but I give a slightly simplified example.

Aristotle said that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. We learned at school, that this is false, that in fact every object falls at the same speed, independent of its weight, as Galileo claimed. Did your teacher demonstrate this to you by dropping a hammer and a feather from the same height? I guess no, and it's not necessary: we all know that the hammer would land first - Aristotle wins! This is because Galileo's theory is true only in vacuum, and Aristotle did not work in/with vacuum (didn't even know about it, just like Newton didn't know about relativity), his theory applies only to bodies submersed in some kind of fluid (either a gas or a liquid), which was universally true for every single object in his world.

See also this Mythbusters video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eTw35ZD1Ig

>>9100888
>What on earth are you talking about.
Yeah, exactly, *on Earth* I am talking about! ;)

>>9100268
Becasue they did, and heavier objects do fall faster than lighter ones.

>>9100268
the scholastics didn't do much thinking for themselves, mostly they just interpreted what the greeks and theologians wrote, it wasn't until the renaissance when the west started answering its own questions again.

Didn't aristotelean physics also involve that thing about dropping a cannonball from the mast of a moving ship, and it staying fixed w.r.t. the earth? I understand the reasoning about high/low density objects' falling speed, but that could've been disproved pretty easily no?