Aristotle’s Argument for why the Earth is Stationary Singly one of Aristotle’s most persuasive arguments to support his belief that the position of the earth is stationary is, as Professor DeWitt categorizes on a handout, argument five. In his fifth argument featured in his account of natural motion, “On the Heavens, Book II, Chapter 14,” Aristotle inconsiderately, to his readers, states in two sentences his argument on why the earth is stationary; however, though the idea may have seemed obvious or simple to him, for readers today, his argument takes more than two sentences to explain. In Aristotle’s fifth argument he argues—regarding the Earth’s rotation—that if “heavy bodies,” an object like a rock, were to be thrown straight up, the object would come straight back down (2). A person could throw
…show more content…
Because of this negation, modern readers who study Aristotle’s work will automatically know that there is something wrong with his argument. Objects do not travel up and down in a straight line; instead, objects move, when falling, in a like arch shape. Consequently, modern readers conclude that Aristotle’s argument must be incorrect. Not until Newton formed his Principle of Inertia in the 1600’s, did people know that “an object in motion tends to stay in motion, unless acted on by an outside force” and therefore that objects fell in arch shapes—not straight up and down. In other words, prior to the 1600’s people believed objects traveled in an up and downward direction; thus, this supported the conclusion that the earth must not be in motion. Though today readers easily disprove Aristotle’s argument because of Newton’s findings, in Aristotle’s time, his argument made logical sense. In fact, it is probable that many people living today would have believed in his argument if they had lived during his time
Because of this negation, modern readers who study Aristotle’s work will automatically know that there is something wrong with his argument. Objects do not travel up and down in a straight line; instead, objects move, when falling, in a like arch shape. Consequently, modern readers conclude that Aristotle’s argument must be incorrect. Not until Newton formed his Principle of Inertia in the 1600’s, did people know that “an object in motion tends to stay in motion, unless acted on by an outside force” and therefore that objects fell in arch shapes—not straight up and down. In other words, prior to the 1600’s people believed objects traveled in an up and downward direction; thus, this supported the conclusion that the earth must not be in motion. Though today readers easily disprove Aristotle’s argument because of Newton’s findings, in Aristotle’s time, his argument made logical sense. In fact, it is probable that many people living today would have believed in his argument if they had lived during his time