Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TychaBrahe t1_j29hevp wrote

Reply to comment by T1N7 in Before Newton, how did people explain falling apples? by maugustus

To expand on this, Aristotle believed that all matter was made up of a mix of four different elements: fire, air, water, and earth; in that order. Things wanted to return to their natural place.

The Sun was above the air of the sky because fire was naturally above air. If you created a fire here on Earth, one of the effects was that sparks would rise, and this was seen as the element fire naturally seeking its place above the air.

Rain was element water that got above element air, and wanted to be beneath it. That's why rain fell. Your average objects, like a rock or a piece of metal, would fall because they were made of element earth. Thus they were naturally attracted to earth, and if they find themselves unsupported in element air, they will naturally fall.

273

atomfullerene t1_j29qpvf wrote

This is one of several reasons the heliocentric theory took so long to catch on, despite being proposed as far back as the ancient Greeks. The existing conception of physics described above fits quite nicely with a geocentric universe, but doesn't mesh at all with a heliocentric theory. You need a whole new sort of physics (like gravity) to make sense of that.

Incidentally, this also means that Earth's position at the "center of the universe" in the geocentric theory wasn't quite as special as we sometimes think today. The earth was at the center, but the center wasn't necessarily seen as the "best" spot, it was more at the bottom of the cosmic pile, the place where all the dirt falls down to. The outer regions, aka the heavens, were often considered the "best seats" (due to their association with, well, heaven). There was often thought to be a "Fifth Element" (yes, the movie got its name from this idea) that inhabited the highest reaches away from earth and was what the stars and planets were made of.

This also means that the movement of the planets was seen as a fundamentally different sort of thing than the movement of apples. Apples were following the nature of earth, going toward the center. Planets were following the nature of their element, moving in perfect, ordered circles in the heavens.

165

BillBigsB t1_j2bipfx wrote

It was in Aristotles lifetime that the first greek was born to propose a heliocentric theory. I suggest you learn more about greek physics before you profound such errors.

−22

compwagon t1_j2avd43 wrote

If you suspend what we obviously know, that was actually a very cleverly thought out theory. Really interesting to see how people thought and understood things back then.

44

cristiano-potato t1_j2b38nd wrote

Seems like it’s a good example for how a totally wrong conceptualization of a situation can still be very congruent with what you can observe easily

33

Mr_Brightwell t1_j2b3q0o wrote

Yeah, and if we have done it once we are probably doing it again, right now.

23

kuroisekai t1_j2bgu7c wrote

Very very true. Nowadays many promonent physicists stake their careers on stuff like String Theory or Multiverse Theory, when neither have any direct evidence to back these up, other than "the math makes sense". That's why it's very refreshing when you hear scientists in places like CERN say "we hope we're wrong because that means we get to make new physics". And also why this year's Nobel Prize for Physics is a big deal: they managed to prove Einstein wrong as well.

9

T1N7 t1_j29k8b2 wrote

Oh wow thanks! I always wondered why the natural state of stuff was considered near the ground...

18

incarnuim t1_j2c64d5 wrote

Also in this conception, water is above earth, so if you drop a stone in a lake, it will seek the earth. But wood is made of air and fire (and a little tiny bit of earth), so it floats. And burns....

1