# Hooke's Law - no duh

Interesting — I didn’t know the history of it at all.
Certainly the current usage of “Ohm’s Law” has changed/broadened, but it makes more sense that the original form would actually be worthy of being called a “law”.

Why should the linear relationship be self-evident? I can see where it would seem obvious that the more you stretch a spring the harder it gets to stretch it - and you certainly hit a point like that with an elastic band.

You really don’t want to masturbate with a hook for a hand.

Could you elaborate on the heavier objects falling faster?

I think he was using it as a famous misconception: people thought heavy things fell faster than lighter things, until Galileo actually dropped some balls from the leaning tower of Pisa to prove them wrong (the actual history is maybe a little more nuanced).

There’s no reason to necessarily suspect the force of springs is linear to how much they’re stretched, and in fact, it’s not, really. But in many cases a linear fit describes the force curve pretty well over some range of motion, and it sure makes the math a lot easier.

I see the spring constant as being constant inside a spring’s frame of reference. It’s unlikely that any series of calculations using the spring constant would need it to be changed unless a different spring was being referenced.

Likewise, the Big G constant may only be valid within the laws of physics that operate within our universe. Sure, that’s essentially the entire scope of reality, but it’s not infinite. The only difference I see is our perspective. The spring constant should not change in respect to a given spring.

The more obvious an invention or discovery seems in hindsight, the more significant it really is, right? It wasn’t obvious until it *was *invented or discovered.