Galileo, Inertial Mass, Gravity

Leaning Tower of Pisa | tower, Pisa, Italy | Britannica

The idea of inertia is not new. It was not invented by Newton, or even by Galileo.

Galileo did make a fascinating elaboration on it, though.

Let's look at the famous thought experiment in which he talked about dropping balls of different sizes from the Tower of Pisa.

The point of the experiment is that, although there are in principle two ways of measuring mass, they come out to be the same. One can measure mass by inertia, or one can measure it in terms of gravity. If mass (gravity) is the important variable in our thought experiment, then one would expect the heavier ball -- say a cannon ball -- to fall to the ground more quickly than the small one, say, the pebble.

On the other hand, if mass (inertia) in the important variable than one would expect the cannonball to move more slowly than the pebble. Inertial mass holds it back from the free fall the pebble enjoys.

The only way that the cannonball and the pebble fall at the same speed is if intertial mass and gravitic mass are the same.

Newton later formalized this idea and Einstein took it a step further. He offered an explanation for why the two in principle distinct notions of mass come out the same. THEY AREN'T THE SAME, THEY ARE IDENTICAL. We can say that they are so because inertia is gravity. Which is affecting a particular mass at a particular time is a matter of our frame of reference.

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog