JG Landels Summary Landels The Progress of Theoretical Knowledge & The Principal Greek and Roman Writers Garrison,

, The Greeks The progress of theoretical knowledge Romans = contributions almost entirely in the field of practical applications Greeks = regarded as theoretical o Three areas of study that are interesting to observe Hydrostatics Mechanics Chemistry o It was a liking for stabilitt, rest and permanence, and corresponding dislike, almost a mistrust, of change, movement and what they called genesis and phthora, coming to be and passing-away Landels, 186 o Why this is so is something of a mystery, but perhaps heir very acute awareness of the impermanence of physical things in their world, and of human life itself, caused them to set a high value on the permanent and the stable Landels, 186 The greeks were extremely focused on the reality of what was going on around them patterns and laws that existed. This was an interesting and unique outlook. They discussed in great length static conditions such as velocities, relative velocities, and resistance, but they did not look much into dynamic conditions such as inertia and kinetic energy, making their definitions of principles in ballistics incomplete (acceleration places a crucial role in the effectiveness of a bullet) They made observations, as Landels states, that a stone continued to fly after it left a hand but they provided absurd explanations as to why this happened. Because Plato and other Greek philosophers were so focused on finding static ideas and principles, as seen in Platos forms, they were almost completely unwilling to attempt to explain or analyze physical changes/happenings, with generations of followers believing in his anti-physical theory. As a result of this pure science ideology, followers of Plato looked down upon those looking into mechanical or practical applications of science. Landels, 187 This resulted in a lack of progress in the study of motion The absence of devices that could be used to measure short intervals of time They measured time differently in the summer than the winter. This worked fine for domestic purposes since most people just put in the towel with the working day at sunset, but the 12 different intervals of time measured between sunrise and sunset were not constant and varied depending on the season.

The clepsydra was an interesting form of measurement used in the courts to allot a fair amount of time to the defense and prosecution. This was measured using a jar of fixed capacity with a hole. When the water ran out, time was up. This measurement was developed in the interest of law fairness, NOT SCIENCE. Archimedes makes one of the most revolutionary attempt giving the study of water properties a mathematical backing Landels, 189 His theory on the disposition properties of water is quite interesting He speaks of pressures and states that at every level, there are objects with different pressures. He lays out the details of his philosophy on objects with density o Less than o Equal to o Greater than Very interesting theory as to why he chose a parabolic shape to uses as a means to measure density of an object o He was able to solve several problems using the parabola. He may have used it simply because he had affection towards the shape. In looking back to Hero, which appears to be Landels main source of information for pretty much everything regardless of the fact that its unclear whether his data is actually accurate. This time, the lack of clarity with Hero is that we are unsure whether the scientific experiment he presents for hydrostatic theory is his or not. o He shows the scientific method in nearly its perfect tense. o He proposes a theory that seems to make sense in which water is pulled up a syphon by the pressure of water that is displaced. o He then proceeds to disprove this theory with an experiment that disproves a portion of his original theory. o In this sense he formulates a theory, uses an experiment to test it, and then accepts the experiment as conclusive evidence that the theory is wrong. o THERE ARE VERY FEW EXAMPLES OF EXPERIMENTAL METHOD IN GREEK SCIENCE, but heros statements prove that it did exist. Both Archimedean logic and Heros more empirical approach do, however, share one feature in common the greek trait discussed at the beginning of this chapter. Both never attempted to analyze the movement of the liquid or assess the change in speed. They were focused on the static! Landels 193 The lever, pulley systems, and the wedge are then discussed

Circles were seen as being particularly useful and interesting. A lot of ideas groped towards the idea of Newtonian physics in which action and reaction are equal and opposite There were a great deal of misconceptions regarding dynamic conditions. It was seen that the higher a mast was put, the faster the ship would go. Also a misconception that rowers amidships contribute more propulsion of the chip than those near the bows or stern, ignoring that their oar-blades move more slowly. They seem to have understood bits and pieces of friction with wheels, but did not state or note that larger wheels move faster because they are not impacted as significantly by potholes Because the Greeks had no means of studying the impact of force in a vacuum, they were forced to make observations with other factors impacting their observations. With chemistry, the Greeks are interesting It is interesting to note how well they understood chemicals used in medicine at the time, but how little general theory they had about chemicals This can be explained by the fact that they had a great deal of chemicals at their reach and could combine and use them on one patient. If results were presented, they could then prescribe them to others. These methods did not require the doctors to know WHY the chemicals were working but rather simply WHAT worked and what didnt. In this case, all that mattered was the source of the material. Their guess and check methods, which also applied to the Romans, gave them success because they were able to sort chemicals and their purposes using only the senses.