Heavy things fall faster than light things

...

Just do some experiments

REEEEEEEEE

Look user, a crazed hobo had the sense of mind to go so far as to pluck a chicken to try and prove Plato wrong. I don't see why no one went to enough half those lengths to try and prove Aristotle wrong. I'm not asking them to prove every aspect of universal gravitation here.

>>heavy things fall faster than light things
>he forgot air resistance
>he meant to say that gravity is equal
Holy fuck

because wind resistance.

I know what you mean. All they had to do was some simple experiments.

I'm saying the same with the other shits too. Its just common sense.

Wind resistance isn't a constant. Two objects of similar shape and density will not have their falling speeds visibly altered by air resistance.

what makes you think people didn't disagree with Aristotle? We only have shreds of existing contemporary texts

Nice changing them goalposts, who said anything about testing objects of similar density and such? First it was different weights.

>what makes you think people didn't disagree with Aristotle? We only have shreds of existing contemporary texts
People agreed with him for centuries to come even back when they did have access to more texts
>Nice changing them goalposts, who said anything about testing objects of similar density and such? First it was different weights.
I'm not shifting goalposts, you're just being stupid. The point of bringing up different densities and shapes is to show that there are clearly situations in which objects' weights do NOT cause them to fall at different speeds. If anyone had dropped a rock and a feather at the same time, and then dropped a rock and a brick at the same time, they'd be able to see that there was a difference in results. In the former case, the lighter object falls slower, and in the later case both objects would fall at the same rate. This would discount the idea that weight had anything to do with it to anyone who wasn't mentally retarded.

What if they tested it, but it worked just fine in Aristotle time? But we will never know for sure because something important is lost in the world of the past? Like when in the future stars are going to be so far away, that they will be considered to be the stupid myth. Just look at the sky, it is fucking dark as night, people of the past are blind or what.

Heavy things fall faster with respect to an observer in earth. This sounds pedantic, but when something is "falling" the earth is also pulled by the object, and we usually don't notice this because the acceleration lf the earth only depends on the mass of the other object so it's negligable. But negligable doesn't mean imaginary and it gives incorrect interpretations of what Newton thought and gives a bad view of what aristotles thought. The important concept that redefined physics was inertia. Inertia is the property of things with mass to opose it's change of state. It's not obvious that in a vacuum, without external force fields if you push something, just a little, it will start moving and keep moving even if no force was impressed at all. Newton's law of gravity was inspired by empirical observation due to kepler and it's a constitutive law that is independent of the laws posed by newton. Inertia brings into play also the concept of relativity, as something that is maintained in motion or is at rest will observe the same physics as only forces are what make things change. Aristotle thought there was no inertia (that until recently was only considered a weird property of things in mass and had no confirmed theory), and that heavier stuff was more difficult to maintain in motion so you would find them naturally at rest.

That, while technically true, was almost certainly not what Aristotle was getting at considering that this phenomenon is not observable with the naked eye. You'd have to believe that Aristotle discovered the laws of motion and universal gravitation for that justification to make any sense, of which there is little evidence that he did.

But they do. Earth is never a vacuum, And the speed of things falling being reliant to calculus' mans predictions are still just a theory.

who does not? do you also believe the earth is flat and that evolution is a hoax by the lizardmen?

umm, i don't think plato dealt with these things, are you talking about aristotle?

>Earth is never a vacuum
Why would that matter? Air resistance is not dependent on an objects weight.

Yea, but the point wasn't that aristotle was right, but that the argument that because things apparentlt fall at the same rat in a vacuum, that means that's a proper, formal consequence of Newtons theory of gravitation which throws a lot more out of the window. My point was that this example gives an incorrect view of classical mechanics, not that aristole was knew about GMM/r^2. And again, inertia as a concept doesn't really has an intuitive and obvious reason and it literally needs empirical comfirmation, and anyone who hasn't been presentef with basic newtoniaj mechanics will not accept the claim that a little push is enough to maintain something moving.

because the wind will move lighter things away from the ground

No, because you need to factor in air resistance, which would be based on surface area and texture.

>because the wind will move lighter things away from the ground
that's entirely dependent on how windy it is. If you drop one 10 pound object and another 20 pound object indoors on a day with hardly any wind, the force of the wind on either object will be negligible from a visual standpoint.
>No, because you need to factor in air resistance, which would be based on surface area and texture.
No you don't. Here's an experiment for you user. Grab a pen and a book ( i.e. two objects of different surface area, texture, and weight). Then go into your living room, hold them from the same height, and drop them simultaneously. I guarantee you that they will hit the ground at the same time as far as your eyes and ears can distinguish. Technically speaking the air resistance on these two objects is not equal, however, in this environment the force of the air resistance will be too negligible for you to detect the effect that it's taking on either object. This would have been the case for Aristotle as well.

>will be negligible from a visual standpoint.
are you admitting that on a factual, platonic basis. That the form of a lighter object, will fall more slowly than that of a heavier one? Despite its negligence?

And it can be "proven" in 3 seconds by dropping a feather and a brick. It really isn't obvious.

Consider also how people consider flat-earthers to be total nutcases despite the fact that it's not trivial to prove either way. A little bit of thought and experimentation are required.

I do a much better experiment, or at least I use to. It is called parachuting. There is no question that how fast you freefall depends on several factors. One obvious one is how you are dressed. Loose clothing with a rough texture slows you down and smooth tight clothing allows a higher speed. Also a spread eagle position is much slower than head or feet first with your arms tucked in.

Another factor is the air. Hot, dry air allows a faster freefall speed than cold, damp air. This will never show up from dropping things from shoulder height, but try it from a few thousand feet up.

You're missing the point user. I'm not saying that air resistance is negligible in every circumstance. I'm saying that claiming that you NEED to factor in air resistance when trying to disprove Aristotle using tools he would have had is not true.

Oh, good point which i did miss.

No, because a lighter object does not have an inherent form.
>And it can be "proven" in 3 seconds by dropping a feather and a brick. It really isn't obvious.
You don't understand how "proof" works. If it can be proven with one experiment and disproven with another, then it has ultimately been disproven. That dropping a feather and a brick seemed to support the idea does not stand equal to the matter that dropping two rocks of different weights still contradicted the idea in question. It only takes one contradiction to shatter the validity of a claim.

it has a subjective form. Because we're comparing it to another as a priori

>it has a subjective form
In what way? All that was stated was that one object was 10 pounds and the other was 20 pounds. The lighter object could take up more or less space than the 20 pound object. The forms of the objects, or even the notion of them having differing forms in the first place was never stated.

objects that are larger, but stay up in the air is due to their total weight being less than the weight of air. until that point, the wind will move heaver objects less far away. Thus making them hit the ground sooner.

>objects that are larger, but stay up in the air is due to their total weight being less than the weight of air.
No, they stay in the air because they are less dense than the air. An object that weighs 20 newtons but has a volume of 2 cubic meters will float up, while an object that weighs 10 Newtons but has a volume of 0.5 cubic meters will hit the ground (when discounting air resistance of course). The object's weight is not the deciding variable unless it is already assumed that both objects have the same volume.

WHAT? ARE YOU SAYING HEAVIER OBJECTS DO NOT FALL FASTER?

yes

They do if you are observing while planted to an object.

mhm

Are you saying that, if I drop an orange, and a ball with the same size and shape of the orange but made of iron, from the top of a skyscraper, the ball of iron WON'T hit the ground first?

I love how the guy was all for careful refutation and challenging ideas and the Medieval Christcucks were like, what Aristotle said is set in stone duuhhh.

If it did then it'd be due to the iron ball's density and various factors relating to the air. The weight of the ball would have nothing to do with it. Try out the experiment stated in and see for yourself.

Compare how long it takes for jupiter to collied with earth to an apple. The same rate is just an approximation if thr mass of the objects are negligable to the mass of earth.

>peasants who doth barely afford shit posting machinery refute the ideas of Aristotle himself due to large trickery and falsified experiments.
How the vulgarity of this place astounds me.

What?

He's impersonating the kinds of people in the middle ages that was talking about.

K

This is actually a thing that some scientists try to study, im not sure what it is called but it is about measuring things that we think of as "constants" in physics and seeing if they actually are constant, or if they change over time with the age of the universe. Im not sure if they have found any proof of changes yet but with advancing technology and more precise measurements (more decimal places) there may be proof yet

Because people didn't usually have to drop things with precise timing, so they never looked into it.

>None of that is common sense. The notion of weight contributing to falling speed can be disproved in 3 seconds by dropping a pebble and a brick.

No; as pointed out, a rock will hit the ground before a feather. Cite the section in Aristotle's works if you think it anything more than a practical and correct observation. Consider yourself btfo.

>No; as pointed out, a rock will hit the ground before a feather.
Because of the feather's shape, not because of its weight dumbass.

>Cite the section in Aristotle's works if you think it anything more than a practical and correct observation.
Gladly
>We see that bodies which have a greater impulse either of weight or of lightness, if they are alike in other respects, move faster over an equal space, and in the ratio which their magnitudes bear to each other.
>t. Aristotle, Physics Book 4, Part 8
The man is not only claiming that heavier things fall faster, but he is outright stating that the rate at which they fall relative to eachother is at the ratio of the disparity of their weight. This statement is blatantly false and easily proven so. I hate having to say this over and over, but go outside and get two rocks of varying weights. Drop them simultaneously from shoulder height and watch as they fall at the same rate, much less fall relative to their weight differences as Aristotle would have you believe. If you still come back after that, then you're just being willfully ignorant.

Heavier objects do fall faster but in a ratio (of the time taken) given by (m+m1)/(m+m2)

see

I know. I'm here just to clarify that objets don't fall at the same raťe, and what put aristotekean physics as a whole to rest were other principles. If the ratio is wrong, that's an easy fix, but there are more fundamental problems.

A parachute with a person in it is heavier than an iron ball but takes much longer to fall to teh ground

get the fuck outa here

XD

thats because of wind resistance moving them away. That an a parachute and a person is not what he defined by an object because that is literally adding a soul into the mix which can do just about anything.

>That an a parachute and a person is not what he defined by an object because that is literally adding a soul into the mix which can do just about anything
>a heavy crate being parachuted down would act any differently

>heavier objects fall faster
>earth is never a vacuum
>b-but air resistance
baka

>air resistance
never wrote that. only applies if you're in a plane and oxygen can't gen in your plane so you wear a mask
it would. Because it can't use a parachute to find where the wind is to fall more slowly

>Because it can't use a parachute to find where the wind is to fall more slowly
do you know what an airdrop is?