Explain what the greeks considered to be the three types of terrestrial motion

Three types of terrestrial motion:

1. Motion with respect to quality

It refers to the passive quality in virtue of which a thing is said to be acted on or to be incapable to be
acted on.

2. Motion with respect to quantity

If the motion in the complete magnitude is increased, motion in the contrary direction is decreased.

3. Motion with respect to place

With the motion with respect to place, it is said to be that locomotion is applicable to things that change
their place only when they have not the power to come to a stand, and to the things that do not move
themselves locally.

Ancient Greek physics and astronomy

A. Celestial Domain

Discuss the following naked-eye observations that are available to the Greeks that led to the belief
that the Earth must be round and not flat.
TIP

Diurnal/daily and annual motion of the sky 10 mins

0 REMIXES
Diurnal/daily motion of the sky

Diurnal/daily motion of the sky

Option 1: Show the learners a sequence of pictures of the sky (either animated or in a sequence of
still pictures) that was time-lapsed for 24 hours from the same location.

Option 2: Give this as an advanced project/assignment. Instruct the learners to take pictures of the
sky using their mobile phones or digital camera. Remind them to take the pictures from the same
location and to take precautions in observing the Sun. Have the learners arrange and label the
pictures in sequence.

From what they’ve seen from the photos, ask the learners what they noticed about the movement of
the objects in the sky. Lead them to describe the change in position of the stars at different hours of
the night.

Annual motion of the sky

Show a sequence of pictures of the sky (either animated or sequence of still pictures) taken every
two weeks over a period of one year from the same position.
TIP

Instruction/Delivery 0 mins
0 REMIXES

Mention that modern scientists know these patterns are produced because the Earth spins on its
own axis and revolves around the sun. In contrast, ancient observers created many myths and
legends about these stars and planets to explain the regularity of the patterns in the sky.

Discuss how some Greeks chose to avoid supernatural beliefs (gods and goddesses) in explaining
phenomena and focused instead on natural causes

B. Terrestrial Domain

Proceed to discussing the motion of objects on Earth. Together with the observations of the sky
pattern and many philosophical explanations based on natural causes, we also observe that objects
on Earth and their motion are constantly changing.

Constant change is brought about by disintegration or corruption of things into more basic parts, and
the need for constant intervention (e.g. force) that keep things from their original state or condition.
Ask the learners to recall their experience of walking as tiresome, hence the need for cars to keep
moving. Cite the need for carabaos or cows to pull plows for farming, and then the need for tractors.

Discuss how the Greeks were able to formulate many theories of the sky and of the Earth based on
observation of natural phenomena. Cite the theory of Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Eudoxus and
Aristotle as among those that were convincing and useful.

Discuss how the Ancient Greek philosophers differentiated between the movement of objects on
Earth and of objects in the Sky. They came up with what we now refer to as the “two-domain view” of
the universe. Discuss the contents of the two-domain view by showing them the differences in the
elements and motions.
TIP

Practice 0 mins
0 REMIXES

Make a table on the board with the following columns: Philosopher name, lifetime period and
philosophical contribution.

For an assignment, ask the learners to fill in the columns with a timeline showing the possible
overlap of the lives of these philosophers. They may add other philosophers who were
contemporaries of the four.
TIP

Enrichment 0 mins
0 REMIXES

See if learners can provide myths and legends about the Moon, eclipse, etc. Start a discussion on
the social effects these had to the community (either local or national). Ask if the learners can
provide possible explanations of how the myths and legends came to be.

Summarize the scientific progress using the story of “A Night in a Museum.” Scientific progress is a
process that includes making mistakes in trying to discover the right path. Point out that science
requires patience and diligence.
TIP
Evaluation 0 mins
0 REMIXES

Give a matching type quiz that connects philosophers with their philosophical contribution.

Another option is to fill out a diagram with domains with corresponding elements and motions found
in these domains.

Ask the learners to provide naked-eye observations showing that the Earth is round.
TIP

?Appendix A: Observations and ancient Greek Philos 0 mins

0 REMIXES

Observations leading to the belief that the Earth is round.

1. Observing lunar eclipses (i.e. when the earth blocks the sun from the moon, casting its round
shadow on the moon's surface (PhysLink.com. (1995-2016). Retrieved from
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae535.cfm.

2. “Simultaneously measuring the length of the shadows cast by identical poles perpendicular to a
flat surface that is tangential to the earth's radius at various, distant locations. If indeed the earth is
round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another. This means
that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to
another. (Recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the
lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of
sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, vary in such a
way that the angles indicate a spherical surface. (This was one of the earliest methods to determine
the radius of the earth)” (PhysLink.com. (1995-2016). Retrieved from
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae535.cfm.) NOTE: The sunlight rays are near
parallel because the Sun is practically very far from the Earth. 3. More lists can be found in the
section “Summary of evidence for a spherical Earth” (n.d.) In Wikipedia. Retrieved date, from https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Summary_of_evidence_for_a_spherical_earth

Ancient Greek Philosophers

Pythagoras (c. 570 - c. 495 BC) — Universe is mathematical; mathematics as the best way to
express truth about the Universe; Sun, moon and Earth are spherical; placed Earth as the center of
the Universe. [3,7]

Plato (c. 427 - c. 347 BC) — attainment of perfection as absence of change; mathematical
symmetries to demonstrate perfect shapes (sphere and circle); celestial spheres being crystalline
and contains the moon, the Sun and the stars; explaining the shadows — read on Plato’s Allegory of
the Cave and the Allegory of the Divided Line — as his description or framework on how to look at
the Universe, in particular that the daily and annual patterns of the sky must have a greater reality
besides its appearance. [2]

Eudoxus (of Cnidus, 408 - 355 BC) — followed previous models of the universe but added auxiliary
spheres to provide appropriate tilt to the planets’ path [7]

Aristotle (384 - 322 BC) — two-domain system with terrestrial domain containing four elements that
tries to attain perfection by being in their natural location relative to the center of the Universe: the
center of the Earth. He was a learner of Plato. [4]
TIP

Appendix B: Two-domain view of the Universe 0 mins

0 REMIXES

Table B1. Summary of the ancient Greek two-domains view of the Universe.

Table B1 summarizes the ancient Greek two-domains view of the Universe. According to them, the
Universe is divided into two domains: Terrestrial and Celestial domains. The Celestial domain is
perfect hence can only be made up of the perfect substance they called “ether” and can only move
in perfect motion: circular in path and constant in speed.

The terrestrial domain objects are imperfect and that the tendency of things to attain perfection is the
cause of their motion. Meanwhile, they also believed that things, depending on their composition of
the elements — fire, air, water, and earth — tend to move towards the center of the Universe (center
of the Earth) or away from it with earth, naturally, as at the center. Fire and water naturally move
away from the center.

Based on the notion of how the Universe is made up and the tendency of things to move towards
their perfection, natural motion is believed as that brings things towards their more perfect state.
Thus, heavy objects fall “faster” than lighter ones. Even so, they already know the effect of air drag
being related to medium density (air or water) as well as the mass of the object. Their notion of
falling faster may be closer to terminal speed than the concept of acceleration. [8]
TIP

Appendix C: A night at a museum 0 mins

0 REMIXES

Knowledge of truth can be likened to a visit to a museum at night.

Imagine a museum full of painting and other artworks. As one enters the museum through the door,
one can imagine a case when the light in the museum is currently off, hence the artworks cannot be
recognized or seen.

Once a switch is turned ON, only a certain portion of the museum is lit and thus only those artworks
illuminated is seen initially. Once the eyes get accustomed to the bright illumination it eventually
recognizes and sees the artwork in view. One could also imagine that the gaze depends on the
interest at the moment so that other artworks may not be in view despite being illuminated by light.
Either way, it does not mean that the other artworks are not present in the museum.

Knowing is like being able to see the artworks as their images are seen through the eyes in the
presence of light. The ideas in our mind is the analogy of the images we see and the things
observed are the artworks. Our limited knowledge means that not all the artworks have been
illuminated yet, the illumination obscures our sight, or our sight is not yet accustomed to the
illumination.

Glossary

Diurnal motion of the sky — the appearance that the objects in the sky moves relative to the Earth’s
local horizon (celestial objects: moon, Sun, stars, planets; there were only five known planets:
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) as observed for one whole day at the same location on
Earth. See URL reference.

Annual motion of the sky — the appearance that objects in the sky moves relative to the background
stars as observed at the same time of the day and at the same location on Earth.

What is the quality of motion?

This question is hard to interpret. So I'll try to answer two interpretation.
If you mean quality as in what makes some form of motion more of a quality ride than
others. It probably has to do with smooth constant accelerations and a lack of vibrations
which is a result from motion relative to the surroundings. Basically how much of the
resulting motion do you feel. Less is better.

If you mean quality as in the properties of motion. That is a rather deep metaphysical
question and I need some sort of accepted construct to work in to have an explanation. I
can tell you that concept of motion just exists regardless of what construct you use. A
physicist generally will reduce motion of things are due to fundamental force interactions
(gravity, electromagnetism, weak, strong) and tendencies systems have like a total increase
of entropy. This is a causal interpretation of how motions arise. But this cheats your question
because it is an after thought after observing motion of objects and projecting properties of
the objects being observed.

To show how hard this question I'll direct you to a video where Feynmann tries to answer
almost as hard of a question about magnetism.

The quantity of motion is the measure of the same, arise from the velocity and quantity of
matter conjointly. In other words, rather than defining the quantity of motion of a given object
as simply the kinematic velocity v of the object, he defined it as the product mv, where m is the
mass of the object.

The Quantity of Motion:

During the late 17th and early 18th centuries, as the science of dynamics was being established,
there were competing ideas as to the best (or “correct”) way of quantifying motion. In ancient
times – and even in some contexts today – the word “motion” was taken to signify a purely
kinematic attribute of a physical entity, quantified by the parameter v, representing the distance
traveled per unit time. Of course, the concepts distance and time are non-trivial in themselves,
leading to conundrums such as those discussed by Zeno, but nevertheless the kinematic concept
of motion seemed satisfactory and unproblematic to most people in ancient times. However,
the modern science of dynamics was based on a profoundly different idea as to how to quantify
“motion”. At the beginning of the Principia, after defining “quantity of matter” as the product of
density and volume, Newton proposed the following definition:

The quantity of motion is the measure of the same, arise from the velocity and quantity of
matter conjointly.

In other words, rather than defining the quantity of motion of a given object as simply the
kinematic velocity v of the object, he defined it as the product mv, where m is the mass of the
object. This is an immensely significant change in the concept of motion, shifting it from a
kinematical to a dynamical basis. It implies that “motion” without mass (or, as we would now
say, mass-energy) is impossible, i.e., that the purely kinematic concept of motion is meaningless,
and that mass represents a scale factor on the spatio-temporal parameter v.

Since the quantity (singular) of motion is a scalar, Newton’s definition implicitly treated the
parameter v as what we would call the scalar speed, rather than the vector velocity. Hence the
quantity of motion is not precisely identical to the modern concept of momentum, which is a
vector. Based on the scalar quantification of “motion”, Newton had to acknowledge that,
contrary to the teachings of Descartes, the “quantity of motion” is not conserved. In Question
31 at the conclusion of The Opticks he wrote

From the various composition of two motions, ‘tis very certain that there is not always the same
quantity of motion in the world. For if two globes joined by a slender rod revolve about their
common center of gravity with a uniform motion, while that center moves on in a right line
drawn in the plane of their circular motion, the sum of the motion of the two globes, as often as
the globes are in the right line described by their common center of gravity, will be bigger than
the sum of their motions when they are in a line perpendicular to that right line. By this instance
it appears that motion may be got or lost.

This is an interesting illustration, showing that Newton really did (in this context) conceive of the
“quantity of motion” as a scalar rather than a vector. The two conditions he considered are
shown in the figure below.

In the left hand configuration the quantities of motion of the two individual globes are m(v+u)
and m(vu), giving a total quantity of 2mv, whereas in the right hand configuration each globe
has a squared speed of v2 + u2, so the total quantity of motion is
Newton doesn’t comment on the fact that the total quantity of motion in any particular
direction is constant, nor does he mention that the sum of the expressions mv2 for the two
globes is constant. This latter invariance applies not only to the two configurations, parallel and
perpendicular to the overall direction of motion, but to all configurations, as shown by the fact
that the squared speeds of the globes when the connecting rod makes an angle  with the
direction of motion of the center of gravity are

Hence the sum is always 2(v2 + u2). It’s tempting to imagine that this is how Leibniz arrived at the
idea of vis viva, rather than momentum, as the fundamental conserved quantity. However, his
actual reasoning was evidently based on consideration of free-fall. In 1686 he wrote

I suppose the same force is requisite to raise a body A of one pound weight, to the height of four
yards ; which will raise the body B, of four pounds weight, to the height of one yard. This is
granted both by the Cartesians, and other philosophers and mathematicians of our times. And
from hence it follows, that the body A, by falling from the height of four yards, acquires exactly
the same force, as the body B by falling from the height of one yard.

Of course, Leibniz was not using the word “force” here in the way that Newton was to define
the word in Principia, published a year later. Leibniz used the word “force” to signify what we
would call “work”, as the thing acquired by a body when in motion, a thing to which he granted
ontological status (unlike space and time). There is a certain plausibility to his argument,
because the effort required to raise an object by one yard (near the Earth’s surface) is sensibly
independent of the height, so raising one object by four yards or four identical objects by one
yard ought to require the same effort. Naturally we can simply define this to be the meaning of
the words (effort, work, or force), but Leibniz’s point was that this “effort” is the most
ontologically significant quantity associated with motion. The followers of Descartes, and later
the followers of Newton, also quantified motion in terms of free-fall, but instead of regarding as
fundamental the weight of an object multiplied by the spatial extent of the fall (from rest), they
focused on the weight multiplied by the temporal duration of the fall. Galileo had shown that if
an object, initially at rest, falls for a time t, it will fall a distance of s = g(t)2/2. It follows that
the speed v of the object at the end of the fall can be inferred from either the distance fallen or
the duration of the fall by the relations

Multiplying through each of these expressions by the mass m of the object, and noting that the
downward Newtonian force (i.e., the weight) on the object is F = mg, we have

Thus the argument about whether momentum or kinetic energy (half of Leibniz’s vis viva) is
more fundamental amounted to an argument about whether the temporal or the spatial
interval is more fundamental. We now recognize that the three components of the momentum
vector and the single scalar value of energy jointly comprise the energy-momentum 4-vector,
whose absolute magnitude is the rest mass, in accord with the fundamental relativistic relation

where we have chosen units of space and time so that c = 1. This relation follows directly by
multiplying through the Minkowski metric

by (m/d)2, and identifying the components

In view of this, the debate over vis viva and vis mortua (living force and dead force) does not
seem to have been a pointless quibble over semantics and fuzzy definitions (as some have
characterized it), but rather an examination of the components of the mass-energy vector and
their relations to each other.

The collision of inelastic bodies was often used as a counter-example to Leibniz’s claim that vis
viva is always conserved. Two identical lumps of clay, thrown together with equal and opposite
speeds, will come to a halt, and seemingly their kinetic energy has vanished. However, Leibniz
argued that the original kinetic energy remains, but has merely been re-distributed to
imperceptibly small chaotic motions of the constituent parts of the bodies – a kind of motion
that we call heat. This is indeed the case, and Leibniz ought to be credited for anticipating this
important aspect of the conservation of energy (i.e., the convertibility between mechanical
energy and heat), as well as an understanding of the mechanical basis of heat in terms of
molecular motion. (Interestingly, during the spirited 19th century debate between the
supporters of Joule and the supporters of Mayer as the “true” first discoverer of the
convertibility between mechanical energy and heat, it appears that none of the participants
thought of Leibniz.)

Returning to Newton’s discussion in The Opticks about how “motion may be got or lost”, it’s
interesting that his example of the revolving globes fails to account for the vector nature of
momentum. This is strange, because Newton obviously recognized the vectorial nature of
momentum. Indeed, it could be said that his greatest achievement was the explanation of
circular orbits in terms of a continuously-changing momentum (due to the change in direction)
even while the “quantity of motion” remains constant. Hence, we would expect Newton to
realize that, for the two revolving globes, the magnitude of the combined momentum is not
equal to the sum of the magnitudes of the momenta of the individual globes, because
momentum is a directed quantity. Likewise, if two identical bodies of mass m approach each
other from opposite directions, each moving with speed v relative to their center of gravity, the
sum of the magnitudes of their individual momenta is 2mv, whereas the momentum of the two
bodies together is zero. (After the bodies collide, their combined momentum remains zero, but
the momenta of the two individual bodies after collision depends on the elasticities of the
bodies.)
It goes without saying the Newton was well-aware of all this, so we can only conclude that he
carried along two related concepts of momentum, one a vector and the other a scalar, defined
as the absolute value (magnitude) of the vector. Letting M(x) denote the magnitude of the
vector x, we know that M(x + y) is not generally equal to M(x) + M(y). We may say that, in effect,
there is constructive and destructive interference between the individual components. For a
system consisting of three elementary particles with momenta p1, p2, p3 we can define three
distinct momentum scalars, one for each possible partition of the particles

The first of these represents the net quantity of motion of the aggregate, whereas the last
represents the total quantity of motion, essentially summing the magnitudes of the momenta of
the individual elementary constituents. In the limit of a continuous medium, the total quantity
of motion would be the integral of the density times the speed, i.e.,

In the kinetic theory of gases, the mean value of the kinetic energy of the molecules
corresponds to the heat content, and for monatomic gases this is proportional to the
temperature. For a continuous medium the kinetic energy would correspond to

In addition to the kinetic energy, a continuous medium may also possess other energy modes,
such as the potential energy of compression or tension, and the potential energy stored in
“fields”. In a sense, the conservation of energy serves as an organizing principle, and in every
situation we identify modes of energy so as to ensure that the total energy is conserved. It’s
interesting to consider why the total quantity of motion does not afford an equally useful basis
for organizing our knowledge. In Newton’s example of the revolving globes, the invariance of
the sum of the squared speeds, even when the entire revolving configuration is set in uniform
motion, is closely related to the relativity of motion in three-dimensional Euclidean space.
Viewing the configuration in terms of a uniformly moving system of coordinates must not result
in cyclic variations of the energy. The sum of squared speeds satisfies this requirement, but the
sum of absolute speeds does not.

On the other hand, in the case of a harmonic oscillator, consisting of two masses connected by a
spring, the total kinetic energy does vary cyclically, and yet we maintain conservation of energy
by including the potential energy contained in the spring. Would it be possible to define such a
thing as “potential momentum”, analogous to potential energy, for the case of the revolving
globes? The rod holding the globes together is in tension, resisting the inertial tendency of the
globes to fly apart, but this tension is constant, so it seems we cannot attribute any varying
“potential momentum” to the rod. However, the tension in the rod is alternately parallel and
perpendicular to the aggregate direction of motion, so if we were determined to conserve
absolute momentum, we might define the potential momentum of tension as a function of the
orientation of that tension relative to the direction of motion. We could assert that the potential
momentum of a given amount of stress in motion is greater when the stress is perpendicular to
the direction of motion than when it is parallel to the direction of motion. The spatial extent of
the rod behaves in just this way when special relativity is taken into account, so at least some of
the variation in “potential momentum” could be associated with the variation in length. But this
doesn’t seem to lead to any natural concept of potential momentum that would keep the total
absolute momentum constant.

In the context of special relativity, Newton’s example of revolving globes superimposed with
translational motion has interesting implications. With respect to the rest frame of the center
gravity, every orientation of the rod and globes is symmetrical, and the globes have constant
speed, and the tension in the rod is constant. However, with respect to a relatively moving
system of inertial coordinates, the speeds and kinetic energies of the individual globes are
constantly changing, as are their resistances to acceleration. The total energy is constant, but
some portion of that energy shifts back and forth between the two globes. At each instant,
exactly equal amounts of energy are deducted from one globe and added to the other, and yet
we know that energy cannot be conveyed instantaneously from place to place. The rod
connecting the globes must be the means by which the energy is transferred, but is cannot be
regarded as perfectly rigid. It’s spatial extend is varying in terms of the translating coordinates
(so the globes describe elliptical rather than circular paths), and the phase relations between all
the variations are such that the energy seems to be conveyed from one globe to the other
instantaneously. It’s interesting that the rod is not conveying any net energy with respect to one
frame of reference, but it is conveying net energy with respect to another.

It’s interesting that Newton seemed to consistently neglected interference phenomena, not only
with regard to light, but also in the area of dynamics. As noted above, when dealing with an
observable quantity M associated with a system variable x, we may find that M(x+y) does not
equal M(x) + M(y). Two ways in which this inequality can occur are (1) non-linearity, and (2)
interference. Leibniz’s vis viva, mv2, is an example of non-linearity, since m(v1+v2)2 does not
equal mv12 + mv22. On the other hand, the Cartesian and Newtonian vis mortua, m|v|, is an
example of interference, since m|v1 + v2| does not equal m|v1| + m|v2|.

Around 1800 Thomas Young went beyond Newton’s corpuscular concept of light, devising the
“two slit” experiment to illustrate the wave-like interference characteristics of light. In terms of
modern quantum electrodynamics, the probability amplitude for exchange of a photon along a
given path is a complex number, having a phase as well as a magnitude (just as momentum is a
vector, having a direction as well as a magnitude). As a result, even though the intensity at a
certain location on the screen is positive when either one of the slits is open, the intensity at
that location may be zero when both slits are open, because the contributions from the two slits
may be out of phase. This is analogous to the fact that two bodies may each have a positive
“quantity of motion”, but their combined “quantity of motion” may be zero.