[lyner]

Thank you jp.

[labview1958 (OP)]

http://it.stlawu.edu/~koon/classes/221.222/221L/SampleFormalLab.pdf

The above site is right. My experiments prove it. Sir Hooke was wrong.

[lyner]

You have not answered the primary objection that Hooke, when being precise, actually discusses stress and strain (do you understand what they are?).
How can you think that two sets of data, obtained by students with poor quality equipment, can disprove one of the most basic and well proven bits of Physical Science?
Rather than looking at those graphs, you should look at some evidence which has been gathered in properly conducted experiments and look at the actual theory. You are not encountering 'typical reaction against new ideas' here; you are coming face to face with some real, correct, Science.

[labview1958 (OP)]

www.covenantchristian.org/bird/Smart/Physics1/Hooke's%20Law%20Lab.doc -

More experimental proof at the above website.

   

[lyner]

www.covenantchristian.org/bird/Smart/Physics1/Hooke's%20Law%20Lab.doc -

More experimental proof at the above website.

   

Did you actually read the paper or did you just look at the graph?
You should read the part in the conclusion: "If your line of best fit has a y-intercept of something other than zero, that demonstrates error.  Explain a solution to this discrepancy.  "?

It seems to me that the document implies that you are wrong and not right.

[labview1958 (OP)]

It shows that the experimental results NEVER confirm with  the theoretical results. It is assumed that there are errors when there are NONE.

[lyner]

OK
So, if he did get it wrong, perhaps you could say for what actual amount of stress and what actual strain would the law stop working?
If I were to use a watch hairspring, what load would you need to get it to extend? Then, for a car suspension spring, what load would be needed?

And, of course, the laws describing how materials distort must work for compression as well as stretching. And then there's the question of what is your actual definition of the 'no load' condition. Does it include the effect of the weight of the spring itself?

Rather than keeping on about Hooke getting it wrong, I suggest that you either repeat some measurements with a view to serious accuracy - taking all the forces into account -and also that you read how the interaction at molecular level relates to the measurements on a macroscopic scale.

Don't just mindlessly bat on about how conventional Science seems to be at fault. Do you really think it is another huge conspiracy? If you really do, then you owe it to yourself to get a lot better informed. (About Physics and about the basics of experimental measurement technique.)