Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look · HackerPapers discussions

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — HN submission

Tue, 11 Aug 2026 22:22:33 GMT

Aristotle's Physics: A Physicist's Look

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — mentioned by Osmium

Tue, 10 Jun 2025 14:29:56 GMT

It’s actually a very reasonable approximation within a certain regime: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057 There’s a reason people without training in sciences sometimes have the intuition that heavier things fall faster. This intuition isn’t developed in a vacuum (hah).

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — mentioned by hackandthink

Sun, 01 Dec 2024 17:18:22 GMT

You may be interested in: "Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look" My take is that it was hard to find a better theory, the usual explanation of scholastical dogmatism is to shallow. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — mentioned by hackandthink

Fri, 17 May 2024 05:41:03 GMT

Aristotle was the smartest guy around. Yes he got almost everything wrong but it took many centuries to find better theories. Carlo Rovelli: "Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look" https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — mentioned by aeneasmackenzie

Thu, 16 May 2024 20:36:20 GMT

Aristotle said that denser things fall faster than less dense things and even gave a correct expression for their speed given the limits of his mathematics and notation. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — mentioned by canjobear

Sun, 03 Mar 2024 17:05:59 GMT

Aristotle’s physics is correct for objects immersed in a fluid. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — HN submission

Sat, 10 Sep 2022 05:41:25 GMT

Aristotle’s Physics: A Physicist’s Look (2014)

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — mentioned by anon_123g987

Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:51:10 GMT

> Classical mechanics is not something sacred. It is our first serious model of physics. Just a sidenote: it is at most our second serious model. Aristotle's Physics has a bad rap, but it's "a correct and non-intuitive approximation of Newtonian physics in the suitable domain (motion in fluids), in the same technical sense in which Newton theory is an approximation of Einstein's theory". See "Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look" by Carlo Rovelli (https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057).

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — mentioned by kwhitefoot

Sun, 02 Sep 2018 09:53:43 GMT

If you found that interesting you might also enjoy Rovelli's defence of Aristotle's physics: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — mentioned by kwhitefoot

Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:42:35 GMT

I feel I must defend Aristotle. At least we would need a lot more information before we can conclude that Philoponos really knew what he was talking about. Of course he was right but for this to be effective there needs to be a theory and better experiments and that is what Galileo provided. I recommend Carlo Rovelli's essay on Aristotle's Physics: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.4057.pdf.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — mentioned by kwhitefoot

Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:44:21 GMT

You might want to read Carlo Rovelli's paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057. TL;DR Aristotle's physics lasted a long time because it works in the environment in which people used it.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — mentioned by foldr

Sun, 08 Jan 2017 18:53:23 GMT

This is an interesting take on how Aristotle's physics was more correct than he is usually given credit for: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — mentioned by kwhitefoot

Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:30:16 GMT

I'd suggest that in addition you should read at least some parts of modern translations of early scientific works starting with Aristotle. I don't mean read everything of course but try to get a sense of perspective, not everything was invented in the last hundred years. Also take a look at Carlo Rovelli's monograph: "Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look" at https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057. The kind of thinking that Rovelli describes is essential to success in science

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — HN submission

Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:36:30 GMT

Aristotle’s Physics: A Physicist’s Look

3 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — mentioned by woodandsteel

Sun, 10 Jul 2016 00:57:48 GMT

I have a lot of respect for PG, but boy, is he off track on that. Aristotle was highly specific and highly empirical. His ethics, for instance, is an elaborate study of the various ways individual go right or wrong in their decisions. His politics was based on extensive studies of the constitutions and political histories of nearly a hundred Greek states. And of course there was his biology, based on empirical studies of over a hundred different animal species. And as for his physics, according to this astounding article by Carlo Rovelli (yes, that Carlo Rovelli), his physics is accurate for…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look — mentioned by woodandsteel

Wed, 06 Jul 2016 01:55:45 GMT

Aristotle's biology and political science were quite empirical, and are the foundations of the more modern versions. His cosmology was off track because he didn't have the instruments, like the telescope, needed to collect the needed data. His physics was sound for the particular phenomena he was trying to explain, as this article explains: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.4057v2.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.