I've been studying quite a bit of Aristotles physical sciences through the last 1000 years. Most of his work was reintroduced to Europeans from Arabic sources during the Spanish Reconquista, then during the Scientific Revolution much attention was given to his theories and experiments were organized to test them out. They didn't hold up well:
in the early 1500s Copernicus overturned Aristotles geocentric model of the universe. It took quite some time to be accepted, but did get a lot of attention in the meantime.
in the 1600s Galileo and Newton overturned Aristotles theory of forces, motion and gravity.
in 1650, Otto von Guericke invented an air pump, disproved Aristotles "horror vacui" that a vacuum can can't exits. Guericke went on to show how pressure is responsible for forces in fluids.
1669 German alchemist Hennig Brand, hoping to find gold, discovered phosphorous by boiling urine in glass container to a solid waxy white solid that glowed in the dark. Eventually upturned Greek 4-element view of matter with discovery of first element since Ancient times.
When was Copernicus's theory finally accepted? Are there more examples of Aristotles physical science theories overturned? If there's a better subreddit, tell me soon and i'll delete and prepost.
Another important example is the discorvery of the supernova by Tycho Brahe in 1572. According to the still mainly dominant Aristotlean world view, the sky consisted of certain spheres. The fixed stars sphere ("supralunar sphere"), starting right behind the spheres of the planets, was considered to be eternal and free of change, unlike the sphere below ("sublunar sphere"), where comets and such like were believed to be. Since the object discovered by Brahe showed no parallax against the fixed stars, he was able to conclude that the object was indeed further away from earth than the moon. And since it didn't move, he could outrule the possibilty of it being a planet. Hence it was clear that this was in fact a new star and moreover and more importantly, that Aristotle (and many other important scientist) had been wrong: There was change in the sphere of the fixed stars.( Kepler's discovery of another supernova in 1604 supported this.)
In 1577 there was also another incident that shook the Aristotelian view in astronomy. A comet was seen and as Brahe calculated, the comet also moved in the supra-lunar sphere. So Brahe found, in a pretty short period of time, two counterexamples to the Aristotelian assumption that the fixed star sphere is eternal and unchangeable.
In 1588, Brahe published De Mundi Aetherei, in which he introduced the so called Tychonic System. It's a nifty mixture between the old Aristotelian/Ptolemaic² and the Heliocentric model by Copernicus: The earth is still in the center of the universe, and the sun circles around the earth. All the other plantes, though, circle around the sun.
This system had the huge advantage of being in accordance with theological doctrines. It also honoured the authorities from antiquity, which was probably equally important. But it provided a sensible explanation for the phenomena that could no longer be explained within the framework of Aristotelean theory.
The Copernican theory had its breaktrough some time later. Kepler, who worked as an assistant to Brahe for quite some time, was a supporter of the Copernican model and modified it by introducing the elliptic orbits of the planets. Galilei also was a known supporter, famous for his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems from 1632, in which he contrasted the Copernican and Aristotelean/Ptolemaic system.
The major breakthrough was nonetheless Newton. His celestial mechanic was the first explanation for the movements of celestial bodies through mathematical equations. He validated Kepler, by providing a mathematical theory from which the Keplerian laws could be directly derrived. As Kepler based his theory on Copernicus, Newton "proved" him, too.
²Ptolemaios had made some additions to the Aristotelean world system (the so called epicycles and punctuum equans). Sometimes, it is relevant to stress that we're in fact talking about this world model. In other cases, as above, we're only talking about Aristotelean doctrine. I try to distinguish between the two.