On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 4:25:01 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 6:58 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > *> 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;* > > > Yes, you can prove MATHEMATICALLY that Newton and Lagrange's equations are > exactly equivalent, but more than a century ago it was proven > EXPERIMENTALLY that both those equations are equally WRONG, or at least > less correct than Einstein's equations of motion. Perhaps someday somebody > will find equations that make predictions even better than Einstein's, but > they could not be proven to be better mathematically, they'd have to be > proven to be better experimentally. > > John K Clark >
Obviously, my comment about those equations was in the context of non-relativistic physics. Moreover, I gave you other examples to falsify your claims. No point in arguing with a dishonest person. 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/f8287015-56f7-4e50-b56e-2eca6c765f19o%40googlegroups.com.
