Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] strange things in chem book

The word 'law' means something different to the nonscience teacher and lay person than it does to those who make a study of the terms in science. The word 'law' as used in science would have the same connotation to a lay person as using it to describe the rules of, say, driving on the correct side of the highway or as in robbery is against the law, or underage drinking is against the law. They are true until repealed. Therefore, when we speak of Newton's Laws the person thinks, in no uncertain terms, they are infallible or unbreakable just as the aforementioned laws are to the law-abiding citizen. So, now, in our lessons we are told that that we should explain that Newton's laws of gravity are false or have been superseded by Einstein's Theories of Relativity. So, thinks the non scientist...which is it? Have these these Laws suddenly been repealed? And what is this 'theory' we now say are superior to the 'laws' we were taught about before? Are these scientists crazy? Why do they confuse us so?

Science is confusing enough to the average person. Are we now not making it more so with our waffling about what is true and what is false and, worst of all... what could be true but could be false if you change the conditions or maybe it's both true and false.

Newton is true. period. Einstein is true. period. Both are true. One works 100% of the time for airplanes taking us across the country, and cars stopping for red lights. The other works 100% of the time for all of the above plus for making atomic bombs and nuclear power plants. You use whatever law you need 100% of the time. Notice I said 100% of the time for BOTH concepts. No more of this saying Newton's laws work 99% of the time. Nonsense. Planes don't fly 99% of the time because of Newton and 1% because of Einstein.. They fly 100% of the time if nothing goes wrong mechanically because of Newton. Your car will stop at the red light 100% of the time unless your brakes fail and even then it's because of Newton's Laws, and the average physics student and auto mechanic can figure out why the car didn't stop using those same laws. It's not an approximation... it works 100% of the time and we should tell them that.

All of which may lead to the other discussion about the way problems are set up in physics books... as if nothing else interferes with cars stopping (ie: disregard friction type problems.) But that is fodder for another thread which has been covered here before as well.


On Sep 16, 2012, at 10:10 PM, Ken Caviness wrote:

I'm a little disappointed that no-one noticed that I was taking Marty's advice and being as clear and unmoving as he told us to be, in my reply to him! He made an untrue statement, and I told him so, with no waffling, no wimping out, no RodneyDangerfielding. :-)

Unfortunately it does come across as jumping down people's throats. Not too friendly, probably counterproductive.

Also note that even if a formula was in the past incorrectly identified as universally applicable, that doesn't mean we should continue to call it a "law" today, when we have discovered limits to its applicability.

Of course, if we agree that a "scientific law" can be as much an approximation as Ohm's "law" or Hooke's "law", then sure, all such useful approximations can be called laws.

I think whether a formula is called a "law" or not has more to do with _when_ it was discovered. There was a time when many such formulas were referred to as laws. Anyone ever done a timeline of these laws? I suspect they mostly stop before 1900.

KC

-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] On Behalf Of LaMontagne, Bob
Sent: Sunday, 16 September 2012 9:11 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] strange things in chem book

Rally? False?

A quick look online shows many respected sources calling it a "law". Why are you so afraid of the word?

As far as I can tell from an online search and reference to some old texts in my library - like Gounod's Physics, It has been referred to as the "Law of Gravity" for at least a century and a half. It probably goes back further, but I have no sources at hand at the moment.

We have to stop jumping down people's throats when they use words in a slightly different manner than we do. It turns off people just as quickly as a Jehovah's Witness at the door.

Bob at PC

________________________________________
From: Phys-l [phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] on behalf of Ken Caviness [caviness@southern.edu]
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 7:43 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] strange things in chem book

Absolutely false. To call "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation" a law is false. It's not even true, we have had a more accurate explanation for gravity since 1916: General Relativity. That too is not a final answer, since it demonstrably disagrees with quantum mechanics.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l