Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

fallacy of Galileo

Expand Messages
  • kaziarafatahmed
    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
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      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 argument. Tie m and M together to form a double stone. Then, in falling, m should retard M, since it tends to fall more slowly, and the combination would fall faster than m but more slowly than M; but according to Aristotle the double body (M+m) is heavier than M and hence should fall faster than M.
      If you accept Galileo`s reasoning as correct, can you conclude that M and m must fall at the same rate?
      If you believe Galileo`s reasoning is incorrect, explain why?
    • slim_the_dude
      For all Aristotle knew, once you merge them into one stone, their inherent falling properties change. Maybe once merged, the original stones lose their
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 7, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        For all Aristotle knew, once you merge them into one stone, their inherent falling properties change. Maybe once merged, the original stones lose their original properties and gain a new one based on their new mass.

        --- In mathforfun@yahoogroups.com, "kaziarafatahmed" <kaziarafatahmed@...> wrote:
        >
        > 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 argument. Tie m and M together to form a double stone. Then, in falling, m should retard M, since it tends to fall more slowly, and the combination would fall faster than m but more slowly than M; but according to Aristotle the double body (M+m) is heavier than M and hence should fall faster than M.
        > If you accept Galileo`s reasoning as correct, can you conclude that M and m must fall at the same rate?
        > If you believe Galileo`s reasoning is incorrect, explain why?
        >
      • MorphemeAddict
        ... Or new size. stevo ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 7, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:32 PM, slim_the_dude <mygroupsemail798@...>wrote:

          > **
          >
          >
          > For all Aristotle knew, once you merge them into one stone, their inherent
          > falling properties change. Maybe once merged, the original stones lose
          > their original properties and gain a new one based on their new mass.
          >
          Or new size.

          stevo

          >
          >
          > --- In mathforfun@yahoogroups.com, "kaziarafatahmed" <kaziarafatahmed@...>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > 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 argument. Tie m and M
          > together to form a double stone. Then, in falling, m should retard M, since
          > it tends to fall more slowly, and the combination would fall faster than m
          > but more slowly than M; but according to Aristotle the double body (M+m) is
          > heavier than M and hence should fall faster than M.
          > > If you accept Galileo`s reasoning as correct, can you conclude that M
          > and m must fall at the same rate?
          > > If you believe Galileo`s reasoning is incorrect, explain why?
          > >
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • video_ranger
          Galileo s argument does prove Aristotle s assertion can t apply unconditionally to all possible objects (in other words assuming object can include a pair
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 8, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Galileo's argument does prove Aristotle's assertion can't apply unconditionally to all possible "objects" (in other words assuming "object" can include a pair of stones attached by a string), even though it may or may not be valid within a class of objects (like individual stones).


            --- In mathforfun@yahoogroups.com, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@...> wrote:
            >
            > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:32 PM, slim_the_dude <mygroupsemail798@...>wrote:
            >
            > > **
            > >
            > >
            > > For all Aristotle knew, once you merge them into one stone, their inherent
            > > falling properties change. Maybe once merged, the original stones lose
            > > their original properties and gain a new one based on their new mass.
            > >
            > Or new size.
            >
            > stevo
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In mathforfun@yahoogroups.com, "kaziarafatahmed" <kaziarafatahmed@>
            > > wrote:
            > > >
            > > > 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 argument. Tie m and M
            > > together to form a double stone. Then, in falling, m should retard M, since
            > > it tends to fall more slowly, and the combination would fall faster than m
            > > but more slowly than M; but according to Aristotle the double body (M+m) is
            > > heavier than M and hence should fall faster than M.
            > > > If you accept Galileo`s reasoning as correct, can you conclude that M
            > > and m must fall at the same rate?
            > > > If you believe Galileo`s reasoning is incorrect, explain why?
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • sahubrajabasi
            Both Galilio and Aristotle are partially correct . If you take the opposition of air and assme the density of both masses to be same , the heavier object will
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 12, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Both Galilio and Aristotle are partially correct . If you take the opposition of air and assme the density of both masses to be same , the heavier object will fall faster .If the opposition of air is neglected ,(e.g. if both masses are of iron ),then the two will fall at the same rate.
              We make simple statements , without getting into the details of variabls involved . This is what leads to paradoxes or self-contradictions.

              --- In mathforfun@yahoogroups.com, "video_ranger" <markjones76@...> wrote:
              >
              > Galileo's argument does prove Aristotle's assertion can't apply unconditionally to all possible "objects" (in other words assuming "object" can include a pair of stones attached by a string), even though it may or may not be valid within a class of objects (like individual stones).
              >
              >
              > --- In mathforfun@yahoogroups.com, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@> wrote:
              > >
              > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:32 PM, slim_the_dude <mygroupsemail798@>wrote:
              > >
              > > > **
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > For all Aristotle knew, once you merge them into one stone, their inherent
              > > > falling properties change. Maybe once merged, the original stones lose
              > > > their original properties and gain a new one based on their new mass.
              > > >
              > > Or new size.
              > >
              > > stevo
              > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- In mathforfun@yahoogroups.com, "kaziarafatahmed" <kaziarafatahmed@>
              > > > wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > 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 argument. Tie m and M
              > > > together to form a double stone. Then, in falling, m should retard M, since
              > > > it tends to fall more slowly, and the combination would fall faster than m
              > > > but more slowly than M; but according to Aristotle the double body (M+m) is
              > > > heavier than M and hence should fall faster than M.
              > > > > If you accept Galileo`s reasoning as correct, can you conclude that M
              > > > and m must fall at the same rate?
              > > > > If you believe Galileo`s reasoning is incorrect, explain why?
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              >
            • Tofique Fatehi
              In vacuum, they both will fall at the same rate as there will not be air-resistance to hinder the fall. Have you ever gone up in an air-balloon? Or come down
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 12, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                In vacuum, they both will fall at the same rate as there will not be air-resistance to hinder the fall. Have you ever gone up in an air-balloon? Or come down with a parachute? What will happen if there is a big hole in the balloon or in the parachute?
                Tofique Fatehi
                 


                ________________________________
                From: sahubrajabasi <sahubrajabasi@...>
                To: mathforfun@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03 PM
                Subject: [MATH for FUN] Re: fallacy of Galileo

                 
                Both Galilio and Aristotle are partially correct . If you take the opposition of air and assme the density of both masses to be same , the heavier object will fall faster .If the opposition of air is neglected ,(e.g. if both masses are of iron ),then the two will fall at the same rate.
                We make simple statements , without getting into the details of variabls involved . This is what leads to paradoxes or self-contradictions.

                --- In mailto:mathforfun%40yahoogroups.com, "video_ranger" <markjones76@...> wrote:
                >
                > Galileo's argument does prove Aristotle's assertion can't apply unconditionally to all possible "objects" (in other words assuming "object" can include a pair of stones attached by a string), even though it may or may not be valid within a class of objects (like individual stones).
                >
                >
                > --- In mailto:mathforfun%40yahoogroups.com, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@> wrote:
                > >
                > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:32 PM, slim_the_dude <mygroupsemail798@>wrote:
                > >
                > > > **
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > For all Aristotle knew, once you merge them into one stone, their inherent
                > > > falling properties change. Maybe once merged, the original stones lose
                > > > their original properties and gain a new one based on their new mass.
                > > >
                > > Or new size.
                > >
                > > stevo
                > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > --- In mailto:mathforfun%40yahoogroups.com, "kaziarafatahmed" <kaziarafatahmed@>
                > > > wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > 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 argument. Tie m and M
                > > > together to form a double stone. Then, in falling, m should retard M, since
                > > > it tends to fall more slowly, and the combination would fall faster than m
                > > > but more slowly than M; but according to Aristotle the double body (M+m) is
                > > > heavier than M and hence should fall faster than M.
                > > > > If you accept Galileo`s reasoning as correct, can you conclude that M
                > > > and m must fall at the same rate?
                > > > > If you believe Galileo`s reasoning is incorrect, explain why?
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                >




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Tarcisio Goes
                With air resistance, mass is not the only issue. The shape of the object is also vital. Compare an open umbrella with the same mass of a metal sphere. Tarcisio
                Message 7 of 9 , Dec 12, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  With air resistance, mass is not the only issue. The shape of the object is
                  also vital. Compare an open umbrella with the same mass of a metal sphere.

                  Tarcisio

                  -----------------------

                  Both Galilio and Aristotle are partially correct . If you take the
                  opposition of air and assme the density of both masses to be same , the
                  heavier object will fall faster .If the opposition of air is neglected
                  ,(e.g. if both masses are of iron ),then the two will fall at the same rate.
                  We make simple statements , without getting into the details of variabls
                  involved . This is what leads to paradoxes or self-contradictions.

                  --- In mathforfun@yahoogroups.com <mailto:mathforfun%40yahoogroups.com> ,
                  "video_ranger" <markjones76@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Galileo's argument does prove Aristotle's assertion can't apply
                  unconditionally to all possible "objects" (in other words assuming "object"
                  can include a pair of stones attached by a string), even though it may or
                  may not be valid within a class of objects (like individual stones).
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In mathforfun@yahoogroups.com <mailto:mathforfun%40yahoogroups.com> ,
                  MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:32 PM, slim_the_dude <mygroupsemail798@>wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > **
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > For all Aristotle knew, once you merge them into one stone, their
                  inherent
                  > > > falling properties change. Maybe once merged, the original stones lose
                  > > > their original properties and gain a new one based on their new mass.
                  > > >
                  > > Or new size.
                  > >
                  > > stevo
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In mathforfun@yahoogroups.com
                  <mailto:mathforfun%40yahoogroups.com> , "kaziarafatahmed" <kaziarafatahmed@>
                  > > > wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > 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 argument. Tie m and
                  M
                  > > > together to form a double stone. Then, in falling, m should retard M,
                  since
                  > > > it tends to fall more slowly, and the combination would fall faster
                  than m
                  > > > but more slowly than M; but according to Aristotle the double body
                  (M+m) is
                  > > > heavier than M and hence should fall faster than M.
                  > > > > If you accept Galileo`s reasoning as correct, can you conclude that
                  M
                  > > > and m must fall at the same rate?
                  > > > > If you believe Galileo`s reasoning is incorrect, explain why?
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  >





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Halfpenny
                  Tarcisio is correct. And linking the objects together should ordinarily make no difference except for the shape and impermeability to air. consider a man tied
                  Message 8 of 9 , Dec 12, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Tarcisio is correct. And linking the objects together should ordinarily make no difference except for the shape and impermeability to air. consider a man tied to an open parachute compared to a man tied to a parachute that does not open.
                     
                    Joey
                     


                    ________________________________
                    From: Tarcisio Goes <tcgoes.groups@...>
                    To: mathforfun@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:09 PM
                    Subject: RE: [MATH for FUN] Re: fallacy of Galileo

                     
                    With air resistance, mass is not the only issue. The shape of the object is
                    also vital. Compare an open umbrella with the same mass of a metal sphere.

                    Tarcisio

                    -----------------------

                    Both Galilio and Aristotle are partially correct . If you take the
                    opposition of air and assme the density of both masses to be same , the
                    heavier object will fall faster .If the opposition of air is neglected
                    ,(e.g. if both masses are of iron ),then the two will fall at the same rate.
                    We make simple statements , without getting into the details of variabls
                    involved . This is what leads to paradoxes or self-contradictions.

                    --- In mailto:mathforfun%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:mathforfun%40yahoogroups.com> ,
                    "video_ranger" <markjones76@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Galileo's argument does prove Aristotle's assertion can't apply
                    unconditionally to all possible "objects" (in other words assuming "object"
                    can include a pair of stones attached by a string), even though it may or
                    may not be valid within a class of objects (like individual stones).
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In mailto:mathforfun%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:mathforfun%40yahoogroups.com> ,
                    MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:32 PM, slim_the_dude <mygroupsemail798@>wrote:
                    > >
                    > > > **
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > For all Aristotle knew, once you merge them into one stone, their
                    inherent
                    > > > falling properties change. Maybe once merged, the original stones lose
                    > > > their original properties and gain a new one based on their new mass.
                    > > >
                    > > Or new size.
                    > >
                    > > stevo
                    > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In mailto:mathforfun%40yahoogroups.com
                    <mailto:mathforfun%40yahoogroups.com> , "kaziarafatahmed" <kaziarafatahmed@>
                    > > > wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > 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 argument. Tie m and
                    M
                    > > > together to form a double stone. Then, in falling, m should retard M,
                    since
                    > > > it tends to fall more slowly, and the combination would fall faster
                    than m
                    > > > but more slowly than M; but according to Aristotle the double body
                    (M+m) is
                    > > > heavier than M and hence should fall faster than M.
                    > > > > If you accept Galileo`s reasoning as correct, can you conclude that
                    M
                    > > > and m must fall at the same rate?
                    > > > > If you believe Galileo`s reasoning is incorrect, explain why?
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >
                    >

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • soeb fatehi
                    a hole in a balloon can accelerate you abnormally in a direction dependent on the position of the hole . . .  ... From: Tofique Fatehi
                    Message 9 of 9 , Dec 12, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      a hole in a balloon can accelerate you abnormally in a direction dependent on the position of the hole . . . 

                      --- On Wed, 12/12/12, Tofique Fatehi <tofiquef@...> wrote:

                      From: Tofique Fatehi <tofiquef@...>
                      Subject: Re: [MATH for FUN] Re: fallacy of Galileo
                      To: "mathforfun@yahoogroups.com" <mathforfun@yahoogroups.com>
                      Date: Wednesday, 12 December, 2012, 16:02
















                       









                      In vacuum, they both will fall at the same rate as there will not be air-resistance to hinder the fall. Have you ever gone up in an air-balloon? Or come down with a parachute? What will happen if there is a big hole in the balloon or in the parachute?

                      Tofique Fatehi

                       



                      ________________________________

                      From: sahubrajabasi <sahubrajabasi@...>

                      To: mathforfun@yahoogroups.com

                      Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03 PM

                      Subject: [MATH for FUN] Re: fallacy of Galileo



                       

                      Both Galilio and Aristotle are partially correct . If you take the opposition of air and assme the density of both masses to be same , the heavier object will fall faster .If the opposition of air is neglected ,(e.g. if both masses are of iron ),then the two will fall at the same rate.

                      We make simple statements , without getting into the details of variabls involved . This is what leads to paradoxes or self-contradictions.



                      --- In mailto:mathforfun%40yahoogroups.com, "video_ranger" <markjones76@...> wrote:

                      >

                      > Galileo's argument does prove Aristotle's assertion can't apply unconditionally to all possible "objects" (in other words assuming "object" can include a pair of stones attached by a string), even though it may or may not be valid within a class of objects (like individual stones).

                      >

                      >

                      > --- In mailto:mathforfun%40yahoogroups.com, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@> wrote:

                      > >

                      > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:32 PM, slim_the_dude <mygroupsemail798@>wrote:

                      > >

                      > > > **

                      > > >

                      > > >

                      > > > For all Aristotle knew, once you merge them into one stone, their inherent

                      > > > falling properties change. Maybe once merged, the original stones lose

                      > > > their original properties and gain a new one based on their new mass.

                      > > >

                      > > Or new size.

                      > >

                      > > stevo

                      > >

                      > > >

                      > > >

                      > > > --- In mailto:mathforfun%40yahoogroups.com, "kaziarafatahmed" <kaziarafatahmed@>

                      > > > wrote:

                      > > > >

                      > > > > 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 argument. Tie m and M

                      > > > together to form a double stone. Then, in falling, m should retard M, since

                      > > > it tends to fall more slowly, and the combination would fall faster than m

                      > > > but more slowly than M; but according to Aristotle the double body (M+m) is

                      > > > heavier than M and hence should fall faster than M.

                      > > > > If you accept Galileo`s reasoning as correct, can you conclude that M

                      > > > and m must fall at the same rate?

                      > > > > If you believe Galileo`s reasoning is incorrect, explain why?

                      > > > >

                      > > >

                      > > >

                      > > >

                      > >

                      > >

                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                      > >

                      >



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



























                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.