The layman--and with him must be included all those who have merely learned science but not used it--talks a great deal about “the laws of Nature,” which he regards as abstract, immutable, universal and eternal edicts, part of which are transcribed into the textbooks. To the working scientist they are only more or less convenient formulas; in the ultimate analysis only mnemonic symbols for stringing together facts to make them easier to handle, like _vibgyor_, for the spectrum colors. He knows that most of them are limited in their scope and only approximate in their accuracy. His chief delight is in discovering these limitations and irregularities. He regards these “laws” with no awe or reverence. He has no attachment for any of them--unless it happens to be one that he has formulated himself. If he finds a new hypothesis that works better he throws the old one aside as he does his old model dynamo, or keeps it around as handy still for doing some of the common work of the laboratory. It is, to recur to our example, just as “true,” using the word in its ordinary sense, to say that the sun goes around the earth as to say that the earth goes around the sun, for all motion is relative, and we can regard either body as the stationary one or both as moving, as we choose. When we say that the statement that the earth moves around the sun is the “true” one, we merely mean that it is the more convenient form of expression, for on this hypothesis the paths of the earth and the other planets become circles (or more accurately speaking, irregular and eccentric spirals) while on the other and older hypothesis their paths are very complicated and difficult to handle mathematically. The theory that the earth moves is not only simpler than that of a stationary earth, but it is wider in its scope. It explains more, that is, it connects up with other knowledge, such as the flattening at the poles. Copernicus, then, did not discover a new fact about the solar system. He only invented a lazier way of thinking about it.