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] |
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 "aBut each of these is a relationship between variables.
generalization based on facts."
3) Newton's law of gravitation, on the other hand, is not "aNTN gravitational law is also a relationship between variables.
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 .
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
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2444 - Release Date: 10/18/09
09:04:00