tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994073177496022401.post8890875063234382412..comments2024-03-27T15:00:33.760+00:00Comments on Catholic Commentary: "Thinking faith" , science and religion, and Richard FeynmanJoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09339499088443959192noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994073177496022401.post-32646967996172092932008-04-04T04:04:00.000+01:002008-04-04T04:04:00.000+01:00Dear Joe,- just a quick (and probably irrelevant) ...Dear Joe,<BR/><BR/>- just a quick (and probably irrelevant) word on Consolmagno's comments on pendulums: Of the presumed interpretations of Aristotle, Galileo and Newton, Aristotle's is arguably closest to the truth for a _real_ pendulum, such as what might have been observed by these fine gentleman. In fact Galileo's observation, that the pendulum's period is independent of its amplitude, is untrue, even for an ideal pendulum (the period is only approximately constant for small amplitude oscillations). Newton, I believe, was a bit smarter than what Consolmagno implies: he would realize that for a real pendulum, where the weight is not a point mass and the string is not massless, there are torques on them from gravity as the pendulum swings back and forth, so even in a complete vacuum, where there is no friction from the string or from the air, there IS something that keeps the pendulum from swinging (at constant amplitude) forever. <BR/><BR/>Best regards,<BR/>MikeMichael A. Gottliebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09135751809126029753noreply@blogger.com