Re: F=ma: law or theory?

[Robert Cohen <Robert.Cohen@PO-BOX.ESU.EDU>]

At 01:13 PM 10/16/01 -0400, I wrote:
> > I agree with the above.  However, I was once informed by somebody
> > (two people, actually, who certainly acted as though *I* was the
> > misguided one) that F=ma is actually a theory, not a law.  Is anyone
> > familiar with this alternate view who can provide the
> argument for it?

On Tuesday, October 16, 2001 1:34 PM, John S. Denker replied:

> Well, the above was restricted to _Newtonian_ mechanics.  If
> you lift that
> restriction, the game changes.  If you start from canonical mechanics
> (Lagrangians and all that) you can derive F=ma or various
> generalizations
> thereof.

OK, F=ma can be derived from something else.  Are you saying that the
"something else" is a theory?  Can you be more clear on what might make
F=ma a theory instead of a law?  I interpret "theory" to imply "explanatory"
whereas "law" implies "empirical".  Maybe that is my mistake here.

----------------------------------------------------------
| Robert Cohen               Department of Physics       |
|                            East Stroudsburg University |
| rcohen@po-box.esu.edu      East Stroudsburg, PA  18301 |
| http://www.esu.edu/~bbq/   (570) 422-3428              |
----------------------------------------------------------