Re: [Phys-l] DATA, FACTS, LAWS, THEORIES

[ludwik kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>]

On Oct 18, 2009, at 6:38 PM, John Clement wrote:

> > 1) Each Kepler's law is an example in which the term "law'" means "a
> > generalization based on facts."
> But each of these is a relationship between variables.
>
>
> > 3) Newton's law of gravitation, on the other hand, is not "a
> > generalization based on facts." That is why I think it is better to
> > say "Newton's theory of gravitation." It explains Kepler's Laws in
> > terms of postulated F=G*M*m/r^2 .
> NTN gravitational law is also a relationship between variables.
>
> These all follow the rule that I have put forth as being the  
> requirement to
> be called a law.

Suppose a student John collected data and plotted distance versus  
time. Would you call it John's law?


Ludwik Kowalski, a retired physics teacher
5 Horizon Road, Apt. 2702, Fort Lee, NJ, 07024, USA
Also an amateur journalist.

                                            Food for thought:  
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

Updated links  to his selected publications are at:
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/  ,   http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/my_opeds.html 
  and  http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/revcom.html