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

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

> > I was taught to use "The Energy Principal"  by Peter Redmond whenever
> > possible, as it is easier.  This was some time ago -- have laws been
> > substituted for principles?
> >
> > I instinctively used law for the relationship of extension and force
> > in my hardening magnetic repulsion oscillator. Not a generalization;
> > is this wrong?

There is no right or wrong as long as it works.  We are all taught about
right and wrong, but then we apply this inappropriately to situations such
as ambiguous terminology.  Language rules are subject to regional and
situational variation.  I would say the distinctions between the words in
question are also very subject to interpretation.  The names are just names,
and the concept comes first, name last.  I always ask students things like
what is the meaning of 4m/s and they will say it is velocity.  Whereupon I
say, you gave me the name, now can you give me the meaning.  This is
actually straight our of Arons.

So I would presume that calling a particular specific relationship a law is
just fine.

Does anyone know when various items have switched terminology from principle
to law?  When were Newton's postulates first called laws?  Did Kepler call
his relationships laws?  Did Hooke publish his relationship as a law?  Why
don't we call NTN1 Galileo's law because it is nearly word for word the
same?  What happens when a law is discredited?

I don't know any of these things.  I do know that language changes and
evolves in various ways.  For example the rule of stress in English is to
stress the first syllable so cigaRETte has become CIGarette.  But names of
important people go the other way and are Frenchified so CORnil became
CornELL.  The process of language change is slowed by the written language,
but not stopped.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX