The Human Question

Two questions regarding equilibrium: 1. What does equilibrium have to do with homeostasis? I.e., is the latter a kind of chemical equilibrium? 2. What does equilibrium have to do with the law of inertia/momentum? Does the hypothetical thing moving in a straight line at a constant speed in any way tend toward equilibrium? I don't think so. But isn't there is some law of equilibium that applies to all motion, or does it only apply to acceleration? If the latter, then wouldn't this underscore how moving at a constant speed etc. is an empty set? 3. And you know that example of a thing moving in a straight line at a constant speed? With respect to what? And how did it get started moving? Or was it always moving? If the latter, then why isn't it closer/farther than the other thing than it is now?

It's often complained that he thought the natural state for bodily things is rest, whereas we moderns know that it's movement. But of course, he thought the natural state for heavenly bodies was ongoing circular motion. And didn't he also think that fire naturally moves up, earth and water move down (and Air somewhere in between)? Granted, they rest when they get to where they were heading (more accurately, they rest when they are impeded from getting closer to where they are heading). These were limited motions, unlike the endless revolutions of heavenly bodies. But he didn't look for an efficient cause of such motions, at least not in the same way that he might for the cause of an arrow's moving sideways through the air, for stuff made of earth (such as the arrow) does not naturally move sideways, let alone upward (which would obviousy be contrary to its tendency). Shouldn't we say that the stuff of earth naturally moves downward until it reaches an impediment