The purpose of this research is to examine the concept of projectile motion as set forth by Aristotle and Newton. The plan of the research will be to discuss why the explanation of projectile motion was difficult for Aristotle and how he overcame it, and then to deal with Newton's idea that inertial motion is not absolute but relative, as a response to Aristotle's views of matter and space.
Aristotle's natural philosophy can be seen as an argument of the principles of motion, progressing from observation of motion that occurs in observable reality to an ever-more-simplified conception of the first motion of all, emanating from the unmoved mover. The overriding concept is that science is discussed in terms of philosophy. In Physics, Aristotle provides a logical rationale for discussing what is real, saying that what is may be actual or potential (Physics 327, et passim), or to put it another way, natural or artificial. Aristotle repeatedly makes the point that terms and conditions can be thought of in more than one way. The actuality or potentiality of existence is an important key to his statement that of whatever may exist, "some exist by nature, some from other [i.e., artificial] causes" (Physics 328).
At the center of this definition is the assertion that all existent things, natural or artificial, are subject to some category of change. Motion is central to this argument. For Aristotle, existence is either actual (which means existence was preceded by change) or potential (which means a new form of existence will come about because of change). There is an implication of purpose to change, whether natural or artificial, which is where Aristotle's teleological concept of the universe enters. Thus if there is purpose in the universe, then it becomes possible to discover principles by which both the actuality and potentiality of the universe can be explained. That purpose, in conjunction with identifying causes of everything in t...