On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 6:41:35 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 9:31:19 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 9:07:12 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> *> Clark, since you claim implicitly to having a serious understanding >>>> of E&M, can you give a proof of Planck's BB radiation law? AG * >>>> >>> >>> Of course I can't! Mathematicians prove things, physicists don't. >>> Physicists propose theories and if it turns out the theory is compatible >>> with empirically derived results then it is generally accepted by the >>> scientific community, at least within a certain range of applicability. No >>> physicist gives a hoot in hell for a theory that is contradicted by >>> experimental results regardless of how closely it follows somebody's >>> "postulates". >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >> >> You're just displaying your ignorance, shamelessly as suggested by your >> emotional insistence. Physics starts with postulates about how nature >> behaves. It's basically guesswork as Feynman asserts. I gave you some >> examples. And one can prove specific results from postulates, as Einstein >> did in his 1905 paper on SR in* DERIVING* the LT. Postulates are >> accepted if they give good predictions. No one doubts that, so you're >> affirming something no one disputes. Similarly, Planck didn't pull his BB >> radiation formula out of his hat. He must have started with some >> postulates, from which he derived his formula, and we accept the formula as >> "true" since it accurately predicts what is measured. If you can't say >> anything about Planck's formula, except obvious superficial comments such >> as the fact that he quantizes of the frequency modes, you know nothing more >> about this subject compared to someone like me who admits his courses in >> E&M were "crappy". AG >> > > Clark; take the noble path. Acknowledge that what I wrote above is > correct. TY, AG >
Some other examples: using Newton's law of gravitation, one can mathematically DERIVE the result that planet trajectories are conic sections; using mathematics one can show that Newton's equations of motion, Hamilton's equations of motions, and Lagrange's equations of motion are equivalent; using mathematics one can show that the HUP is implied by the principles or postulates of QM (although the principle was established by Heisenberg independent of the postulates of QM). Are you ready to take the noble path and acknowledge that I am correct about the relationship of mathematics to the principles or postulates of physics? AG > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8e0b49fc-33fa-479c-804e-f24c0c58c404%40googlegroups.com.
