An analysis of the movement must begin with the ancient Greeks. Since the effect of the Greeks lasted two millennia, it is unthinkable to describe the growth of the dynamics without taking this into account. The dominant figure in the ancient evolution of dynamics was Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC). His writings (Aristotle, 330 BC) on this and many other topics have influenced much of science for the next two thousand years. Much of his reasoning on the movement came from the wrong conception of the classical elements (fire, air, water and earth). Each of these has its natural place in the world: the fire at the top; infra of aerial fire; water under the air; and finally the earth rests under all of them. Every time an element was taken from its natural place, it tried to return. This reasoning explains why an air bubble breathes underwater floats on the surface, and why a rock thrown upwards falls back to Earth. Each object was therefore a combination of all these. A feather, lighter than a rock, must have more air than the rock, but less than the air itself. From this line of thought comes the “natural movement”: movement that occurs because of the nature of the object. The rest of the movement was violent; I had a separate cause. A brick that falls to the ground would be natural, but a trap launched from the air would be violent. Aristotle concluded that heavier objects fall faster than light objects and that this fall rate is proportional to their weights: an object the heaviest double falls twice as fast. He also thought that the speed of progression through a medium was inversely proportional to the density of that medium. This intellect implied that the speed of progression in nothingness would be infinite; therefore, he came to the conclusion that the very existence of nothingness was impossible (Aristotle (330 BC), Book IV: 8). they are finished), but there is no empty relationship. In the same section, he wrote that if there were a gap, heavy objects fall at the same rate as light ones (“So, everyone will have the same speed, but this is impossible”). He used this alleged fall rate equality and then said for modus tollens that emptiness can not exist. Furthermore, he wrote that, in the void, there would be no reason for a body to stay in one place or move to another and, therefore, the movement will continue forever. It is often said, on the basis of this statement, that he has enunciated or predicted a principle of inertia, but this is only possible through a selective reading of his works. Among the various physical questions posed by the ancient philosophers, the question of why an arrow continues to fly after leaving the rope has been particularly disconcerting. Aristotle thought that the arrow had moved the air in front of him, that he rushed backwards and pushed the arrow forward. The idea of something that moves violently without another thing pushing it in between; moving without an engine was completely foreign to the Aristotelians. This deceptive division of the natural and violent movement will persecute physics for another two thousand years. Progress towards a real proxy was slow and stopping the world view of Aristotle was rooted in science and in Western and Arab deities. Its dominance in the last of these fields has influenced the progression of the latter. Much of this has become the Church’s creed. Raising his theology above and above the toast, he raised a wall of protection, with power, around his physics. The prolonged rule of Aristotle is now difficult to imagine. No, in the early contributions of the Renaissance to the physics of the philosophers it would be based exclusively on the comments to the works of Aristotle: two millennia after their composition. The sixth-century Alexandrian philosopher, John Philoponus (c. 490-ca. 570), wrote great objections of Aristotelian physics (Philoponus, 2006), and this is where one can see the shadow of a modern and dynamic. Philoponus has found little satisfactions in Aristotle’s attitude, in fact he has also found few satisfactions in his other focal points. In his comments he demolished the work of Aristotle on the natural and violent movement.For the natural movement, Philoponus states that an object has a natural fall rate. Falling through a medium would prevent this natural speed: but a strange time is necessary because of the medium’s intervention. It showed a natural shock rate in the vacuum and the effect of the average resistance decreased. This concept allowed him to deny the Aristotelian concept that the speed with which objects fall are linked to their weights. He did so by appealing to the same kind of experiment conducted in Renaissance Italy about a millennium later. Filopono did not believe in equal rates of fall into the void. In fact, he came to the conclusion that this concept was wrong. His belief was that heavier objects fell faster than light objects in a vacuum. By violent movement, said that when an object moves, a limited supply of force force is given5: a supply of force, while it lasted, explain the continuous movement of the object: rather it is necessary to assume that some reason en` disembodied Ergeia is imparted by the projector to the projectile … This erroneous reason in energeia is exhausted in the course of the movement of an object, which rests when this exhaustion is complete. This property was internal to the body. He came very close to a kind of rudimentary concept of kinetic energy. At least, he approached some concepts that we can now relate to kinetic energy. The conclusion of the sentence quoted above is: … and that the air set in motion does not contribute to anything or very little to this projectile movement. The strongest and most innovative idea made by Philoponus was that a medium did not play a role in maintaining movement. It acts like a delayed force. This notion was in direct opposition to Aristotle, who demanded that the medium cause a continuous movement. This change of paradigm introduced by John Philoponus allowed him to explain that movement in the void was possible. Your lasting contribution is with these qualitative analyzes. Their quantitative explanations lack merit, even if these analyzes resonate through the dynamics of Galileo. In the centuries that followed Filopono, other philosophers followed a surprising and dangerous progression to Newton. Another millennium would have passed before the Aristotelian movement was discarded. The reasons are different, but a large part of they are theological in nature. Filopono’s writings in tritism were declared anathemas by the Church, which led to the negligence, condemnation and ridicule of his writings. Zimmerman said the following (Zimmerman, 1987): his writings, then and later, enjoyed notoriety rather than authority. The inferior works of the mechanics of his contemporaries, such as Simplicio, were treated in a more favorable way.