Does Aristotle's Theory of Falling Objects Hold Up Against Galileo's Experiment?

AI Thread Summary
Aristotle's theory suggests that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, but Galileo challenges this by demonstrating that if a light stone (m) and a heavy stone (M) are tied together, they should fall at the same rate due to gravity. The discussion critiques Galileo's reasoning, arguing that all objects fall at a constant rate regardless of mass when ignoring air resistance. Additionally, a scenario involving two cords supporting a block illustrates that a sudden jerk on one cord causes it to break due to high acceleration, while a steady pull on another cord results in its breakage due to the combined forces of gravity and applied tension. The conversation highlights the complexities of force dynamics in both falling objects and tension scenarios. The analysis ultimately reinforces the understanding of gravitational effects and material strength under different forces.
Destrio
Messages
211
Reaction score
0
Correct me if my thinking is wrong:

Q: If m is a light stone and M is a heavy one, according to Aristotle M should fall faster than m. Galileo attempted to show that Aristotle's belief was logically inconsistent by the following aruement. tie m and M together to form a double stone. Then, in falling, m should retard M, because it tends to fall more slowly than M; but according to Aristotle the double body is heavier than M and hence should fall faster than M.

A: I believe Galileo's reasoning to be incorrect because there is no upward pull in the dropping of the stone, just the force of gravity pulling them to Earth as a constant rate (ignoring air resistance), the rocks m, M, and m+M, should fall all at the same rate.

Q: A block with mass m is supported by cord C from the veiling, and a similar cord D is attached to the bottom of the block. Explain this: if you give a sudden jerk to D, it will break, but if you pull on C steadily, C will break.

A: If you give a sudden jerk, there is high acceleration, and the force applied is greater than the tension force, causing D to break. If you pull on D steadily, that is to say, with arbitrarily low acceleration, the force from the block due to gravity in addition to the applied force will cause cord C to break.

Any comments/critique is much appreciated. Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Destrio said:
Correct me if my thinking is wrong:

Q: If m is a light stone and M is a heavy one, according to Aristotle M should fall faster than m. Galileo attempted to show that Aristotle's belief was logically inconsistent by the following aruement. tie m and M together to form a double stone. Then, in falling, m should retard M, because it tends to fall more slowly than M; but according to Aristotle the double body is heavier than M and hence should fall faster than M.

A: I believe Galileo's reasoning to be incorrect because there is no upward pull in the dropping of the stone, just the force of gravity pulling them to Earth as a constant rate (ignoring air resistance), the rocks m, M, and m+M, should fall all at the same rate.
Galileo was arguing against Aristotle's argument by taking it to its logical conclusion. You seem to be agreeing with Galileo's conclusion that all rocks fall at the same rate.

Q: A block with mass m is supported by cord C from the veiling, and a similar cord D is attached to the bottom of the block. Explain this: if you give a sudden jerk to D, it will break, but if you pull on C steadily, C will break.

A: If you give a sudden jerk, there is high acceleration, and the force applied is greater than the tension force, causing D to break. If you pull on D steadily, that is to say, with arbitrarily low acceleration, the force from the block due to gravity in addition to the applied force will cause cord C to break.
Not bad. A sudden jerk would require a large force to accelerate the mass, but such force exceeds the breaking strength of the lower string.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top