Aristotle was a philosopher, scientist, and teacher of the classical Ancient Greece period. He was by all accounts influential; he taught many great things in plenty of fields. For a long time, his philosophies were accepted as they were and other scholars merely only added to them or modified them a little. His philosophies about physics were however incorrect, and it took the audacious minds of Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Rene Descartes, Galileo, and ultimately Sir Isaac Newton to overthrow the long-established Aristotelian dogma.
Why Newton Versus Aristotle
There are about 2000 years between Aristotle and Sir Isaac Newton. That’s two millennia of almost unchallenged Aristolitelian basic philosophies. I can imagine Aristotle in the afterlife getting all the good reports about his philosophies back on Earth, year after year, century after century. Then one day the wind began to change
“Some Catholic priest by the name of Copernicus is talking some strange things about Earth not being the center of the Universe, but nothing to worry about. No one listens to him“. A newbie from Earth would report.
Over time, these reports got serious …
“Some crazy german Astronomer by the name of Johannes Kepler is stating laws that contradict your philosophies, my Lord! He even says planets don’t follow perfectly circular orbits as you suggested but elliptical ones“
“People are questioning your philosophies, my Lord!”
“Some crazy Italian scholar is telling everyone that heavy objects and lighter objects both fall at the same rate. He even claims he’s seen craters on the Moon from his stupid telescope.”
Then the name “Isaac Newton” began making waves in the afterlife. Aristotle would get very disturbing reports about this fellow…
“Copernicus was a walk in the park, this Newton fellow is just batshit insane. A professional shit-stirrer“
“He’s basically turning your philosophies on its head“
“He’s not even married – I hear he’s still a virgin“
“An apple fell on his head one day and suddenly he went berserk on your established philosophies, my Lord“
Disclaimer
What you are about to read is a hypothetical conversation between Sir Isaac Newton and Aristotle when they eventually met in the afterlife. Obviously, this conversation is a made-up one. The intention is nothing more than that of clarity and a bit of fun. Simply put, this entire article is a work of fiction. For full disclaimers, please read my privacy policy and disclaimers page.
Also, Aristotle wasn’t wrong about everything. He made contributions to other fields that are still relevant to this day, and although some of his assertions about physics were incorrect, they help set the starting point for other great thinkers to develop this beautiful discipline.
Now that formalities are out of the way, let’s get to the fun stuff.
Isaac Newton vs. Aristotle
Aristotle: So you’re the guy who ripped apart my entire doctrine of natural philosophy huh? You’re not exactly what I thought you’d look like.
Newton: *shaking his head slightly* I can’t take all the credit, I’m just the dude who finished what Galileo and others started.
Aristotle: Who the hell is Galileo?
Newton: *surprised* Oh you don’t know him? He’s the guy who proved that your whole “heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects” philosophy was just a pack of crap.
Aristotle: Get outta here…so you want to tell me it’s light objects falling faster than the heavy ones now
Newton: No! They all fall at the same rate.
Aristotle: Impossible! That doesn’t make any sense.
Newton: Actually, when you think about it, it makes more sense than your supposition.
Aristotle: *surprised* really? Do tell!
Newton: Suppose you have a heavy object and a lighter object. You say the heavier one will fall faster and hit the ground first right?
Aristotle: *confidently* Exactly!
Newton: Suppose we tie them up together with a cord so that they now fall as a unit. And for the sake of argument, let’s suppose you’re right, and that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects, okay?
Aristotle: *nodding his head* Okay, continue.
Newton: The heavy object will fall faster than the lighter object, so it’ll be pulling down on the lighter object through the cord. Meanwhile, the lighter object will be falling slower, so it will tend to pull up on the heavier object. The overall effect is that the system will fall slower than the heavier object and faster than the lighter object. But according to you, that system should actually fall faster than the heavier object because it has a bigger combined weight.
[Aristotle ruminates this thought experiment in silence. Shit! Why did I not think of that! Concealing the conflict, Aristotle continues casually…]
Aristotle: But I once dropped a heavy stone and a lighter stone together and I could swear I saw the heavier stone reaching down first.
Newton: *matter-of-factly* On a windy day in Athens? Yeah, happens all the time.
Aristotle: So it’s the wind?
Newton: Air resistance actually. The effect that arises when an object moves through the air. You see, air opposes the motion of objects going through it, just as the ground opposes objects sliding on them, and water opposes the motion of objects going through them. The impact of air resistance on a moving object, depends on the “heaviness” of the object, among other things.
[Isaac Newton then goes into detail on how air friction imparts the motion of falling bodies. Aristotle, who after being challenged in his own game earlier by a brilliant thought experiment, listens to Isaac Newton attentively until he’s finished.]
Aristotle: Okay. So, why do bodies fall back to Earth when they are thrown upwards then? I see you didn’t refer to my notion of “classical hierarchy of order” in your explanation. Did you guys replace that also?
Newton: Oh, the one about fire, air, water, and earth? About a rock falling down because it’s made of earth which is lower in rank than air. So it would naturally descend through air to attain its “rightful place” in the universe?
Aristotle: *nodding his head* Yeah that one.
Newton: Oh that philosophy suffered a sorry death, good thing you weren’t around to see it. We now speak in terms of gravity.
Aristotle: Damn! This Galileo guy must’ve been on my case his entire life huh?
Newton: *smugly* Actually, that was more of me.
Aristotle: *shocked* No shit!
Newton: Well, to be fair the idea was first conceived by Galileo, but it was polished and put into useful practice by me.
Aristotle: How the hell did you do that?
Newton: Well, I was thinking about surviving through a pandemic back in the 1600s when an apple fell from a tree and struck me on the head. I asked myself, “Why didn’t this apple fall upwards or sideways?” I eventually came to realize that the Earth pulls on the apple, and in turn, the apple pulls on the Earth. This makes the apple accelerate and fall to the Earth.
Aristotle: That whole story sounds like a bag of shit.
Newton: *snickering* I invented both gravity and the story!
Aristotle: Ha Ha Ha. I didn’t take you for sly fellow.
Newton: Well, it was more interesting than saying, “I spent years thinking and conceptualizing gravity in solitude”.
Aristotle: *still laughing hysterically* No doubt.
Newton: You know, they still believe it back on Earth, they even went to Woolstrope, my hometown, and found some apple tree on my family’s farmhouse and idolized it. They probably labeled it, “the apple tree IYKYK”
Aristotle: Well, At least they’re not praying to it
Newton: They’re humans Aristotle, you can never tell with these people.
Aristotle: Fair enough. But on a serious note; what’s all this hype about you? I keep hearing something about the “revolutionary three laws of motion”. What are those?
Newton: Nothing more than three profound statements that describe the motion of bodies.
Aristotle: Fill me in
Newton: First of all, the natural state of a body is not at rest as you had us believe in your philosophies. It is either at rest or in motion at an unchanging speed in a straight line. When a body is in motion, it will keep on moving until an external agent steps in to change its motion. And a body at rest remains at rest until an external agent sets it in motion.
Aristotle: *puzzled* So you’re telling me no force is required to keep an object moving?
Newton: Exactly!
Aristotle: hahaha. That’s some crazy shit! The only time I saw a body moving without being pushed or pulled was my buddy Hermias after he’d gulped down two full gallons of wine at a wedding.
[Newton doesn’t seem impressed. He waits until Aristotle’s hysterical laughter dies out. Hoping for a more serious conversation, he begins to walk away…]
Newton: Take a walk with me.
Aristotle: Where are we going?
Newton: Nowhere, in particular, it’s just better to walk and talk.
[Newton kicks a loose stone as they begin to walk together. The stone slides a few feet on the ground, in the clear sight of both men, and then comes to a stop.]
Newton: Do you know why the stone stopped Aristotle.
Aristotle: I have a feeling you’re about to tell me.
Newton: Obviously, the stone stopped because it keeps scratching on the surface. If we take that away, the stone would slide further. Wouldn’t you say?
Aristotle: Yes!
Newton: But it will eventually come to a stop because of the air resistance that I told you about earlier. You’d be surprised at how effective air drag can be in the long run, even if it’s just a little. Now we take away the air as well so that the stone slides frictionless on the surface and without air around it. Do you still think it’ll eventually come to a stop?
Aristotle: Of course! The stone is moving; it’ll eventually come to a stop.
Newton: Well, given that the stone is sliding in a vacuum environment, without making contact with any surface, then it makes no difference whatsoever if the stone is sliding in empty space right? The Earth plays no part at all in its motion.
Aristotle: Yeah. I guess so.
Newton: So, we have a stone floating around in total darkness in space without air resistance beating on it. Technically, the stone has no way of knowing that it is moving, is it? No external clues whatsoever to refer from regarding its state of motion. If we infuse consciousness to the stone, do you think it’ll suspect that it’s moving?
Aristotle: (after few seconds of self-deliberation) I don’t think so.
Newton: Exactly! As far as the stone is concerned, it’s at rest. But you know that the stone is moving because you originally set it in motion. And you are both right. The whole concept of motion makes sense when viewed relative to something else. the concept of inertia suggests that there’s no distinction between a body in uniform motion and that at rest.
[Aristotle stopped in the middle of his walk. This was so much information to digest. He had never been so thoughtfully challenged in his life. Isaac Newton noting the change in pace, also stops walking and indulges Aristotle’s silence. After a long pause, Aristotle asked Newton.]
Aristotle: Why were you and Galileo so good at overthrowing my old philosophies?
Newton: Oh, because we believed in the power of experimentation, and not just stating the obvious as a law.
Feel free to check out my book: Genius: An Isaac Newton Story.
I’ll catch you on my next post, till then stay safe!
