Galileo Vs Aristotle
Todays lecture will focus on the teachings of the highly esteemed Aristotle. Specifically we will be exploring two major questions that are highly important when comparing the great Aristotle to the heretic Galileo. The major questions that we will delve into today are: Does the Earth move? as well as, Is the universe bounded, as Aristotle maintained, or is it infinite?
Aristotle firmly believes that the Earth is immovable, he backs his claim with both science and the word of our Lord. As the lowly Professor of Philosophy that I am, I lay no claim to the ability to interpret scripture, however, with the help of my fellow Theologian Professors I have been able to incorporate the Lord's words that Aristotle so heavily relied on into my lecture. Some of Aristotle's arguments on why the Earth is stationary consist of the violent motion argument, the two motions argument, and the vertical fall argument (Petterson, 76-78). The “violent motion argument” (Petterson, 76), states that if the Earth were to be in motion, we would feel the motion as “constrained and unnatural” (Petterson, 77) or …show more content…
Aristotle writes, “It is clear, then, that the Earth must be at the center and immovable, not only for the reasons already given, but also because heavy bodies forcibly thrown quite straight upward return to the point from which they started” (Petterson,78). The great Aristotle means that all things fall toward the center, the center being the Earth. Since all objects fall in a straight line, the Earth cannot be moving. If the Earth were moving, then any object that falls toward the Earth would be spiraling and circling downward rather than falling in a straight line. (Petterson, 64-65). If I were to drop a ball down to the ground, the ball would fall straight not spiraling, therefore Aristotle must be
Aristotle firmly believes that the Earth is immovable, he backs his claim with both science and the word of our Lord. As the lowly Professor of Philosophy that I am, I lay no claim to the ability to interpret scripture, however, with the help of my fellow Theologian Professors I have been able to incorporate the Lord's words that Aristotle so heavily relied on into my lecture. Some of Aristotle's arguments on why the Earth is stationary consist of the violent motion argument, the two motions argument, and the vertical fall argument (Petterson, 76-78). The “violent motion argument” (Petterson, 76), states that if the Earth were to be in motion, we would feel the motion as “constrained and unnatural” (Petterson, 77) or …show more content…
Aristotle writes, “It is clear, then, that the Earth must be at the center and immovable, not only for the reasons already given, but also because heavy bodies forcibly thrown quite straight upward return to the point from which they started” (Petterson,78). The great Aristotle means that all things fall toward the center, the center being the Earth. Since all objects fall in a straight line, the Earth cannot be moving. If the Earth were moving, then any object that falls toward the Earth would be spiraling and circling downward rather than falling in a straight line. (Petterson, 64-65). If I were to drop a ball down to the ground, the ball would fall straight not spiraling, therefore Aristotle must be