Galileo was technically WRONG

[Dr_Toad]

RJB, You seem to think people agree with you a bit much. When I gave you my minuscule apology, I was nodding at the precision of measurement needed to actually see the thing you're going on and on about.

For all intents and purposes the Newtonian solution is correct, and all the foofaraw you want to dress it up in to include GR in the solution is simply stupid argumentation. Trippy is free to correct me if I misunderstood his response, but dropping a ball on Earth is not the same thing you originally cried about.

Edit: And there it is.

 

[RJBeery]

Right, but that's a seperate issue from whether or not Galileo was technically right or wrong.

And as I've said a couple of times now, my understanding of the historical evidence is that the whole leaning tower of pisa thing was a concoction added at a later date by a biographer.

From Wikipedia on Galileo's Leaning Tower experiment:

According to a biography by Galileo's pupil Vincenzo Viviani, in 1589 the Italian scientist Galileo had dropped two balls of different masses from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to demonstrate that their time of descent was independent of their mass.[1]:19–21 Via this method, he supposedly discovered that the objects fell with the same acceleration, proving his prediction true, while at the same time disproving Aristotle's theory of gravity (which states that objects fall at speed relative to their mass).

If there is any truth to the biography written by Viviani, Galileo's motivation to prove Aristotle's theory of gravity was prudent, and his subsequent discovery that objects fall with the same acceleration was correct, but his original intent of showing that descent time is independent of mass was misguided. Closer to the truth than Aristotle, but still wrong.

Yes, I'm aware that the experiment may not have happened at all. It really comes down to the specific words that Galileo may have used at the time as to whether he was technically right or wrong, and I'm not sure anyone here will ever know what those words were.

 

[Dr_Toad]

So leave it alone already. You just said we'll never know what Galileo said or did.

 

[RJBeery]

RJB, You seem to think people agree with you a bit much. When I gave you my minuscule apology, I was nodding at the precision of measurement needed to actually see the thing you're going on and on about.

For all intents and purposes the Newtonian solution is correct, and all the foofaraw you want to dress it up in to include GR in the solution is simply stupid argumentation. Trippy is free to correct me if I misunderstood his response, but dropping a ball on Earth is not the same thing you originally cried about.

Edit: And there it is.

That's my way of giving people a chance to save face and bow out of the conversation gracefully when they're wrong. I accepted your lame-ass apology which you promised to publicly give after I proved that descent times ARE dependent on the mass of the dropped object. Claiming that the difference is too small to notice is exactly like claiming light travels with infinite speed "for most people, in most practical situations"; that isn't how science works.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Ah. So it's supposed to be ego?

In that case, thank you so much.

 

[Trippy]

From Wikipedia on Galileo's Leaning Tower experiment...

I'm well aware of what is attributed to him, it's that attribution that is being questioned.

If there is any truth to the biography written by Viviani, Galileo's motivation to prove Aristotle's theory of gravity was prudent, and his subsequent discovery that objects fall with the same acceleration was correct, but his original intent of showing that descent time is independent of mass was misguided. Closer to the truth than Aristotle, but still wrong.

Go back and re-read the portions you bolded and then take a moment to consider the precise wording used in both sections, given that this whole thread is essentially an exercise in pedantry.

Yes, I'm aware that the experiment may not have happened at all. It really comes down to the specific words that Galileo may have used at the time as to whether he was technically right or wrong, and I'm not sure anyone here will ever know what those words were.

So then how can you reasonably claim that he was technically wrong?

 

[RJBeery]

Ah. So it's supposed to be ego?

In that case, thank you so much.

Well, you sure had a LOT to say about this topic in the other thread until I posted a proof. Don't worry about it, I adjusted my estimation of your integrity accordingly.

 

[RJBeery]

I'm well aware of what is attributed to him, it's that attribution that is being questioned.


Go back and re-read the portions you bolded and then take a moment to consider the precise wording used in both sections, given that this whole thread is essentially an exercise in pedantry.


So then how can you reasonably claim that he was technically wrong?

I feel it's reasonable to quote a biography written about the man by his student, a contemporary. Your new argument seems to be "since we can't know what he really said then we can't disprove him". This is getting ridiculous.

Let me ask you a question, Trippy, and I want you to be HONEST: before you read through this thread did you believe that fall times were independent of mass?

 

[Dr_Toad]

Is there something wrong with you? Be honest.

 

[Trippy]

I feel it's reasonable to quote a biography written about the man by his student, a contemporary.

Not when doubt has been cast on the validity of the assertion.

Your new argument seems to be "since we can't know what he really said then we can't disprove him".

I'm not saying anything 'new', you're just beginning to figure out what I've been saying.

This is getting ridiculous.

No it's not - I gave an analogy, and I alluded to the explanation in predicate logic.

Let me ask you a question, Trippy, and I want you to be HONEST: before you read through this thread did you believe that fall times were independent of mass?

I believed that it was a good enough approximation (it's close enough to being true) as long as two things were true, m1 <<< m2 and the gravity field could be treated as uniform, both of which are true for dropping small objects close to the earth's surface, and these are the caveats that I was taught the statement was true with when I did my high-school physics. I was never taught that it was universally true.

 

[Trippy]

Minor point of correction to my previous post.

I'm not saying anything 'new', you're just beginning to figure out what I've been saying.

Even this:

Your new argument seems to be "since we can't know what he really said then we can't disprove him".

Isn't the argument I have presented.
Technically speaking, I have presented two points in relation to this.
The first point is that the statement in question may never have been made by him, and if he never made it, how can he be wrong.

The second point is that the statements that were definitely made came with caveats attached. Those caveats define the domain within which the statement can be considered applicable and that considerations outside the domain of applicability are irrelevant to the original statement.

 

[paddoboy]

So leave it alone already. You just said we'll never know what Galileo said or did.

That horse is dead?

 

[paddoboy]

For all intents and purposes the Newtonian solution is correct, and all the foofaraw you want to dress it up in to include GR in the solution is simply stupid argumentation. Trippy is free to correct me if I misunderstood his response, but dropping a ball on Earth is not the same thing you originally cried about.
.

Newtonian mechanics gives us correct answers on many things, here on Earth, and even with the majority of our space missions.
GR would also give the same answers to a much higher degree of accuracy that in reality is just not needed.
It would be akin to a carpenter using a vernier caliper or micrometer to measure and fit a window.

 

[Dr_Toad]

I just use the manufacturer's rough opening dimensions and shims. Windows have to be installed in timely fashion.

Yep, that horse is dead.

 

[RJBeery]

Minor point of correction to my previous post.


Even this:

Isn't the argument I have presented.
Technically speaking, I have presented two points in relation to this.
The first point is that the statement in question may never have been made by him, and if he never made it, how can he be wrong.

The second point is that the statements that were definitely made came with caveats attached. Those caveats define the domain within which the statement can be considered applicable and that considerations outside the domain of applicability are irrelevant to the original statement.

If, as Galileo's student and biography writer claims, Galileo's intent was to "demonstrate that their time of descent was independent of their mass" then Galileo was technically wrong. Did he say that? I don't know. The rest of the post about caveats and domains of applicability has zero foundation and no relevance because it would require Galileo to KNOW about those caveats and that domain of applicability, which he did not. Unless you're claiming that he did(??), in which case I'd need a reference...

 

[Dr_Toad]

How many of your 3,705 posts are more than nitpicking repetitions?

 

[RJBeery]

How many of your 3,705 posts are more than nitpicking repetitions?

How many of your posts are substantive? I mean, how many contain science on this science forum? Look at your posting history here, you seem to be full of trollish comments without actually contributing anything. Posting pictures of horses and handing out cookies to other mistaken posters is not a contribution. If you're tired of this topic please stop following it.

 

[Trippy]

If, as Galileo's student and biography writer claims, Galileo's intent was to "demonstrate that their time of descent was independent of their mass" then Galileo was technically wrong. Did he say that? I don't know.

Right, that's what Vivani claims
What does the very next sentence say? It says that he discovered they fall at the same rate
What was the actual debate at the time? It was whether or not different masses fall at different rates.

Your argument is a pedantic one of technicalities, so I'm calling them out as I see them.

The rest of the post about caveats and domains of applicability has zero foundation and no relevance because it would require Galileo to KNOW about those caveats and that domain of applicability, which he did not.

No it doesn't, it just needs to be implicit in the setup of the thought experiment and I've described one way this might be the case using language that was available in Galileo's time.

Unless you're claiming that he did(??), in which case I'd need a reference...

Considering a ball falling down a bottomless well is the same thing as considering a ball falling an infinite distance in a uniform gravitational field.

 

[RJBeery]

Right, that's what Vivani claims
What does the very next sentence say? It says that he discovered they fall at the same rate
What was the actual debate at the time? It was whether or not different masses fall at different rates.

Your argument is a pedantic one of technicalities, so I'm calling them out as I see them.

...and a few posts back I said we agreed on all points. We agree we can't know what Galileo said, and whether he's right or wrong depends on his exact wording. We have no other source than the biography for this which may or may not be accurate. I've been terribly insistent on the fact that this entire thread is a bit of a pedantic technicality. I even said that it wasn't Galileo the MAN, but rather WHAT exactly many people mistakenly believe his contributions to science proved, that I am attacking...which you begrudgingly agreed with. (Then you strangely went on to continue defending the man...?) I don't think there's anything we disagree on, except apparently who gets to write the last word.

To that end...go for it. The work of myself and others (Fednis, Neddy Bate, et al) has hopefully enlightened some and exposed others. I'm done here, I'm unsubscribing from the thread before Dr_Toad finds another cutesy picture from his daughter's emoticon list to post...

 

[Fednis48]

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. At some point, the physics in this thread tapered off sharply, leaving mostly a discussion of what Galileo actually did/did not claim and what it really means for a statement to be "wrong." Less interesting. Still, 5 people admitting they learned something? That's gotta put us in the top 5% of the internet, at least.