CONSEQUENCES OF ARISTOTLE’S ASSERTION IN FIRST PART OF NEWTON’S FIRST LAW OF MOTION

Objective: One of the fundamental propositions of Aristotelian philosophy is that there is no effect without a cause. Aristotle justified that force is continuously needed to push or pull bodies. It was contradicted by Philonopus and Buridan, and then Galileo established law of inertia. Descartes and Newton's laws are based on law of inertia. All facts are scientifically and neutrally discussed. However Aristotle's assertion appears in first part of Newton's first law of motion. Methods/Statistical analysis: The status of Aristotle's, Galileo's, Descartes and Newton's laws is simultaneously reviewed. Basically Aristotle's observation appears to correct in practical systems i.e. when resistive forces (gravitational, frictional and atmospheric) are present. Galileo's law of inertia is applicable for system devoid of resistive forces i.e. for hypothetical systems. Findings: Aristotle's assertion was criticized by many philosophers such as Philonopus, Buridan etc. Philonopus proposed that motion is due to kinetic force impressed by mover which exhausts gradually. Buridan proposed that motion is due to some property of body. Further Galileo expressed this property as inertia. Consequently Aristotle's assertion was abandoned. However Newton's first law simultaneously accounts for both Aristotle's assertion (first part) and Galileo's law of inertia (second part). Thus even now Aristotle's abandoned assertion is applicable now in Newton's first law of motion. We should try to re-assess its usefulness by formulating mathematical equation based on it. Applications/Improvements: Practically F =ma is equation of force for extended part of Galileo's inertia i.e. when velocity changes (second part of Newton's law in extended form). Should scientists speculate an equation of force for first part of the law; in this case in system possesses resistive forces. In such an equation, the determination of role of resistive forces must be significant, and equation should reduce to F =ma under ideal conditions. Consequently deriving such noble equation would be definitely tedious process. In Aristotelian Physics [4-5] no such equation is mentioned for ‘unnatural or forced motion' relating force with velocities, distance time and resistive forces. When distance or displacement is related with force, then it may explain some more phenomena. Thus it needs serious attempt. Thus many new perceptions are still possible in classical mechanics; some new experiments can be perceived as there is theoretical basis for new speculations. The origin of the proposed equation is consistent with first part of Newton's first law of motion which quotes the Aristotle's assertion (body preserves in its state of rest, unless it is compelled to change the state by impressed forces thereon.) Thus it is both logical and scientific.