From some Portuguese language textbooks, I learned the following definitions:
- linear motion (movimento linear): motion along a line;
- rectilinear motion (movimento retilíneo): motion along a straight line;
- curvilinear motion (movimento curvilíneo): motion along a curved line.
Judging by those definitions, it's clear that linear includes rectilinear and curvilinear, what seems logical when I look at the words, but it seems that, in English language Physics, linear motion is the same as rectilinear motion.
Should that difference be considered a simple linguistic difference? A divergence in how the original concepts evolved and were reinterpreted in each language? Or, contrary to what seemed to me, does linear also include recti- and curvilinear motions in English?
Edit:
It was said that a "linear motion" would be simply "motion" if defined the way I described. I think that's true if you have already restricted ourselves to the motion of particles, since the motion of solid bodies and fluids are not fully described as lines.
I should explain that I found that distinction in Portuguese in the context of uniform and uniformly varying motion. As the motion of a car moving on a road or a float in the stream of a river are usually nonrectilinear but might be considered as at approximately constant speed, the concept of uniform linear motion (constant velocity magnitude) is used instead of that of uniform rectilinear motion (constant velocity vector).
It seems that Brazilians use the expression uniform linear motion to refer to uniform curvilinear motion (the adjective "curvilinear" is rared used here) while English speakers use it to uniform rectilinear motion (I guess "rectilinear" is rarely used there, since it's a synonym of "linear" in practice).
pt. "linear": en. "curvilinear",pt. "retilíneo": en. "linear". Althought our "linear" rigorously includes "retilíneo", it's mostly used to take into consideration that the motion is not along a straight line. – Leonardo Castro Jan 19 '16 at 16:26fórmula de Bhaskarain Brazil, but some people say that the formula was incorrectly attributed to Bhaskara, since it was already known by Indian mathematician Sridara 100 years before Bhaskara (source [in Portuguese]: http://www.mat.ufrgs.br/~portosil/bhaka.html). – Leonardo Castro Jan 19 '16 at 16:39