Science > Physics > Debate: Was Aristotle Correct: Re: A Falling Force
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Douglas Eagleson" |
| Date: |
26 May 2007 03:38:35 PM |
| Object: |
Debate: Was Aristotle Correct: Re: A Falling Force |
Here is a quote from a modern English text of The Heavens by
Aristotle:
pg443 of McKeon's edition
"For there will be a force which moves it, and the small and lighter
body is the further will a given force move it."
Taken as English predicate the force of gravity is the force
referred. What is commonly misunderstood, and repeated verbatum was
the force as abstract body force.
It is a variable in the usage, implying uncertainty of the constancy
between all matter. A force between all heavens was a VARIABLE
possibly, in Aristotle works.
It is a failure to repeat the force as simple gravity. Do not
ever,ever, ever use the prose in Book III chapter 2 of The Heavens to
infer an English predicate law of falling bodies.
Galileo may have had a poor translation. And mistook the size as a
problem. Making his trip to the tower of pizza a lark. Or he had a
different reference. I am still looking for the other possible forces
as the work.
Who knows of the translation used by Galileo? I need to know. If he
use the pg 443 prose, he would have worried about variable forces
between bodies, not constant forces. IMplying a very poor translation
or bad reading. Maybe he read Greek? Did he?
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Was Aristotle Correct: Re: A Falling Force |
26 May 2007 05:12:20 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondouglas@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180211915.446042.52820@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
: Here is a quote from a modern English text of The Heavens by
: Aristotle:
:
: pg443 of McKeon's edition
:
: "For there will be a force which moves it, and the small and lighter
: body is the further will a given force move it."
:
: Taken as English predicate the force of gravity is the force
: referred. What is commonly misunderstood, and repeated verbatum was
: the force as abstract body force.
:
: It is a variable in the usage, implying uncertainty of the constancy
: between all matter. A force between all heavens was a VARIABLE
: possibly, in Aristotle works.
:
: It is a failure to repeat the force as simple gravity. Do not
: ever,ever, ever use the prose in Book III chapter 2 of The Heavens to
: infer an English predicate law of falling bodies.
:
: Galileo may have had a poor translation. And mistook the size as a
: problem. Making his trip to the tower of pizza a lark. Or he had a
: different reference. I am still looking for the other possible forces
: as the work.
:
: Who knows of the translation used by Galileo? I need to know. If he
: use the pg 443 prose, he would have worried about variable forces
: between bodies, not constant forces. IMplying a very poor translation
: or bad reading. Maybe he read Greek? Did he?
:
He would certainly have read Latin, the lingua franca of European
academia.
In the halcyon days of the Holy Roman Empire all translations were
by handwritten manuscript, it was printing (Caxton, Gutenberg) that
made knowledge of ancient works available to all.
William Caxton (c. 1415~1422 - c. March 1492)
Gutenberg (c. 1400 - February 3, 1468)
Galileo 1564 - 1642
I would doubt he had an original Aristotle, though, it would certainly
have been at least a Greek to Greek copy, and probably a copy
of a Greek-Latin translation if it had not been printed in the 100 years
between the invention of printing and Galileo's time.
One needs to be careful with translation and take cliché and concatenation
into consideration.
The correct American -> English translation is
french fries to go -> chips to take away.
American -> French -> German -> English
french fries -> pommes frites -> brat Äpfel -> roast apples
to go -> pour aller -> um zu gehen - > in order to go
http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Was Aristotle Correct: Re: A Falling Force |
26 May 2007 05:44:34 PM |
|
|
On May 26, 4:12 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondoug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180211915.446042.52820@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
: Here is a quote from a modern English text of The Heavens by
: Aristotle:
:
: pg443 of McKeon's edition
:
: "For there will be a force which moves it, and the small and lighter
: body is the further will a given force move it."
:
: Taken as English predicate the force of gravity is the force
: referred. What is commonly misunderstood, and repeated verbatum was
: the force as abstract body force.
:
: It is a variable in the usage, implying uncertainty of the constancy
: between all matter. A force between all heavens was a VARIABLE
: possibly, in Aristotle works.
:
: It is a failure to repeat the force as simple gravity. Do not
: ever,ever, ever use the prose in Book III chapter 2 of The Heavens to
: infer an English predicate law of falling bodies.
:
: Galileo may have had a poor translation. And mistook the size as a
: problem. Making his trip to the tower of pizza a lark. Or he had a
: different reference. I am still looking for the other possible forces
: as the work.
:
: Who knows of the translation used by Galileo? I need to know. If he
: use the pg 443 prose, he would have worried about variable forces
: between bodies, not constant forces. IMplying a very poor translation
: or bad reading. Maybe he read Greek? Did he?
:
He would certainly have read Latin, the lingua franca of European
academia.
In the halcyon days of the Holy Roman Empire all translations were
by handwritten manuscript, it was printing (Caxton, Gutenberg) that
made knowledge of ancient works available to all.
William Caxton (c. 1415~1422 - c. March 1492)
Gutenberg (c. 1400 - February 3, 1468)
Galileo 1564 - 1642
I would doubt he had an original Aristotle, though, it would certainly
have been at least a Greek to Greek copy, and probably a copy
of a Greek-Latin translation if it had not been printed in the 100 years
between the invention of printing and Galileo's time.
One needs to be careful with translation and take clich=E9 and concatenat=
ion
into consideration.
The correct American -> English translation is
french fries to go -> chips to take away.
American -> French -> German -> English
french fries -> pommes frites -> brat =C4pfel -> roast apples
to go -> pour aller -> um zu gehen - > in order to go
http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr
Yes, there are also a couple of missing radiations;
that of electrons, and that of galaxies.
Are either irrelevant just because the first is at
too high a frequency and the second at too low
for us to register?
Are *they* restricted by the speed of light
or is their 'speed of light* different?
Are only the things *we* can see allowed to be in Physics?
That would be silly.
That would cut off knowledge of input energy.
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Was Aristotle Correct: Re: A Falling Force |
27 May 2007 05:05:59 PM |
|
|
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
Here is a quote from a modern English text of The Heavens by
Aristotle:
pg443 of McKeon's edition
"For there will be a force which moves it, and the small and lighter
body is the further will a given force move it."
[snip rest of crap]
That doesn't work. Dust mote or Luna, cumulative translation is
unrelated to mass or force. Absent further external inputs the body
stays in motion.
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Was Aristotle Correct: Re: A Falling Force |
27 May 2007 05:19:21 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:465A00C7.E584F1EB@hate.spam.net...
[snop fat wert]
Hahahaha.... Uncle Stooopid bested by hanson!
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Was Aristotle Correct: Re: A Falling Force |
28 May 2007 12:50:13 AM |
|
|
Ouch!.. "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in
news:Jtn6i.11736$4a.4868@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:465A00C7.E584F1EB@hate.spam.net...
[snop fat wert]
[Andro]
Hahahaha.... Uncle Stooopid bested by hanson!
[hanson]
Don't say that, Andro! -- Don't increase Al Schwartz's
own internal suffering needlessly. -- Al's calling everybody
"idiot" again is symptomatic (as it was with all his other
earlier inventions) of Al's severe anxieties over his failure
about his current, Benzilated Einstein overthrow attempt
which appears to have put Al into danger of drowning
himself in his own "River of *****":
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6d7071a5d80140a5
ahahaha... ahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Was Aristotle Correct: Re: A Falling Force |
28 May 2007 02:56:56 PM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:p4u6i.2226$XC3.177@trnddc04...
: Ouch!.. "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in
: news:Jtn6i.11736$4a.4868@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: > "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
: > news:465A00C7.E584F1EB@hate.spam.net...
: >
: > [snop fat wert]
: >
: [Andro]
: > Hahahaha.... Uncle Stooopid bested by hanson!
: >
: >
: [hanson]
: Don't say that, Andro! -- Don't increase Al Schwartz's
: own internal suffering needlessly. -- Al's calling everybody
: "idiot" again is symptomatic (as it was with all his other
: earlier inventions) of Al's severe anxieties over his failure
: about his current, Benzilated Einstein overthrow attempt
: which appears to have put Al into danger of drowning
: himself in his own "River of *****":
: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6d7071a5d80140a5
: ahahaha... ahahanson
: >
Oh, but I will say it. Uncle Stoopid's wet farts are funnier than
his snops or Dork's anips.
What I should have said was: Uncle Stooopid bested by hanson AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Was Aristotle Correct: Re: A Falling Force |
29 May 2007 06:33:50 PM |
|
|
On May 26, 4:38 pm, Douglas Eagleson <eaglesondoug...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Here is a quote from a modern English text of The Heavens by
Aristotle:
pg443 of McKeon's edition
"For there will be a force which moves it, and the small and lighter
body is the further will a given force move it."
Taken as English predicate the force of gravity is the force
referred. What is commonly misunderstood, and repeated verbatum was
the force as abstract body force.
It is a variable in the usage, implying uncertainty of the constancy
between all matter. A force between all heavens was a VARIABLE
possibly, in Aristotle works.
All this from a translation from a language you don't speak, into
another language you can barely handle.
It is a failure to repeat the force as simple gravity. Do not
ever,ever, ever use the prose in Book III chapter 2 of The Heavens to
infer an English predicate law of falling bodies.
Galileo may have had a poor translation.
Or you could just be an idiot.
And mistook the size as a
problem. Making his trip to the tower of pizza a lark. Or he had a
different reference. I am still looking for the other possible forces
as the work.
Or? Or? Or?
Who knows of the translation used by Galileo? I need to know.
Then go to a library and find out, tool.
If he
use the pg 443 prose, he would have worried about variable forces
between bodies, not constant forces.
So you think galileo used the ENGLISH translation?
IMplying a very poor translation
or bad reading. Maybe he read Greek?
In the Renaissance, MANY people could read Greek. Greek was the
language of the pinnacle of Classical Learning. Even the New Testament
was written in Greek. The scholastic movement in monastaries routinely
studied and translated Aristotle.
Did he?
So your concept is that neither Galileo nor anyone else in the
Renaissance (nor the Arabs who kept classical learning alive) nor the
Jewish translators could actual understand Aristotle. What makes you
think that YOU understand him?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Drake" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Was Aristotle Correct: Re: A Falling Force |
29 May 2007 04:52:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 May 2007 20:38:35 UTC, Douglas Eagleson
<eaglesondouglas@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here is a quote from a modern English text of The Heavens by
Aristotle:
pg443 of McKeon's edition
"For there will be a force which moves it, and the small and lighter
body is the further will a given force move it."
...
Galileo may have had a poor translation.
This makes it sound as if Galileo found out about Aristotle and figured
out what that worthy had been talking about, all on his own, and got it
wrong. Actually, like every other person educated in math and astronomy in
his time, he studied Aristotle at university (in Latin translation,
presumably) and studied all the commentators, including, of course, the
highly respected Roman authority, Simplicius. To talk of a misreading by
Galileo is to misunderstand the situation completely.
And mistook the size as a
problem. Making his trip to the tower of pizza a lark.
There used to be a place around here called The Leaning Tower of Pizza,
and there may still be; but the name was a joke.
Anyway, it is by no means certain that he actually made that experiment in
Pisa, and he certainly didn't need to, with plenty of evidence from both
sensate experience [experiments] and necessary demonstrations
[mathematical proofs], to use the terms he liked. Whoever may have been
misreading Aristotle, the philosophers of the early 17th century,
followers of Aristotle to a man, considered it established -- by Aristotle
-- that bodies fell with a speed proportional to their weight. This is
abundantly clear from the documents of the time, including arguments with
Galileo.
Or he had a
different reference. I am still looking for the other possible forces
as the work.
Who knows of the translation used by Galileo? I need to know. If he
use the pg 443 prose, he would have worried about variable forces
between bodies, not constant forces. IMplying a very poor translation
or bad reading. Maybe he read Greek? Did he?
I don't think he read Greek. You might want to check the works of
Simplicius and others to see what they got from the Greek. But it's not a
matter of one errant translation; the pundits all studied Aristotle and
were largely in agreement on these matters.
--
Dan Drake
dd@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
