

Arguments that are too clever for their own good - rayvega
http://cstheory.blogoverflow.com/2012/02/arguments-that-are-too-clever-for-their-own-good/

======
dstorrs
Galileo's argument is actually quite slipshod and is based on the ambiguity of
language and the narrowness of what-we-commonly-experience as a slice of all-
that-really-is.

If Aristotle were right then the rocks would EITHER fall slower or faster
together. There is no "knowing" if they are one object or two.

But Aristotle is wrong. Which means Galileo's thought experiment is irrelevant
to reality and should be ignored. The picture is very simple: gravity pulls
down, air resistance pushes up. Gravity is constant but air resistance is
higher for faster moving objects. That's all you need.

~~~
twiceaday
There is nothing wrong with assuming something that is false. Doing so and
coming to a contradiction is a common way of disproving the premise.

Also, you missed the point. The premise is that heavier weights fall faster.
The cleverness in the argument rests in consider what happens when you break a
heavy rock into two differently-sized pieces. Using the premise each should
fall slower than the whole; but what changed? Do they somehow know that they
are separated? Of course not, that's nonsense. There is no "knowing" if they
are one object or two. Therefore everything falls at the same rate. Which is
true assuming no atmosphere.

The argument is still valid in the presence of an atmosphere, all you have to
do is ensure similar drag coefficients.

------
VMG
link changed: [http://cstheory.blogoverflow.com/2012/03/arguments-that-
are-...](http://cstheory.blogoverflow.com/2012/03/arguments-that-are-too-
clever-for-their-own-good/)

------
twiceaday
Article fails to deliver on the premise.

