if at math.bu.edu
Sun Oct 7 11:12:46 EDT 2007
We can not go on here with a discussion on the fundamental nature of
the physical world. It will require of us seven lifetimes, and we
will be very promptly cut short by the moderators asking that we
return to Hebrew. Still I will make a brief comment on what you said
and then rest my case. I will do it since whenever I say something
which is not in line with the prevailing grammatical wisdom [the
sacred "consensus"] I am accused of:
1. Bringing "insufficient evidence" to support my claim.
2. Giving no "proof" of my claim.
3. Arguing "unscientifically".
4. Making "silly", "funny" or "silly-funny" [or "funny-silly"]
You may be right that "Conservation of energy derives in an
indisputable chain of mathematical logic from characteristics of
space-time". After all mechanical energy is but the first integral of
the equation of motion, an integral that includes a conserving
constant of integration. Still, there is surely "insufficient
evidence" for the "characteristics of space-time", they are
axiomatic. However you may logically argue, eventually your argument
can be retraced to an axiom.
In my opinion conservation of mass is an axiom. It is an axiom that
denies the existence of material miracles.
We all know that there is even "insufficient evidence" for 1+2=2+1.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Oct 7, 2007, at 2:00 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
> > As a scientist you should that there is "insufficient evidence"
> even for such fundamental laws of nature as conservation of energy
> and conservation of mass.
> Sorry, not even close.
> Conservation of energy derives in an indisputable chain of
> mathematical logic
> from characteristics of space-time.
> Conservation of mass is a first approximation to conservation of
> for low energy interactions.
> However, I don't expect such rigorous proofs here,
> just something more convincing.
> Of course, I purposely chose related words based on )CM,
> but my parable was about the H suffix.
More information about the b-hebrew