1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.PHYSICS.RELATIVITY

  • The proof of Noether theorem

    From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 5 08:55:12 2025
    Well, Pythagorean theorem had about
    120 proofs - and is still [allegedly]
    not valid for the world we inhabit.

    So, how about Noether theorem? Proven
    or not, the question whether it is valid
    should still be open I guess?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon May 5 14:00:06 2025
    On 5/5/2025 1:51 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On 05/04/2025 11:55 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
    Well, Pythagorean theorem had about
    120 proofs - and is still [allegedly]
    not valid  for the world we inhabit.

    So, how about Noether theorem? Proven
    or not, the question whether it is valid
    should still be open I guess?

    It's really simple and follows from Pauli principle.

    I bet it is; but is it valid for the
    reality, like 2+2=4 or not, like
    Pythagorean theorem?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertitaylor@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon May 5 13:03:32 2025
    On Mon, 5 May 2025 11:51:28 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

    On 05/04/2025 11:55 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
    Well, Pythagorean theorem had about
    120 proofs - and is still [allegedly]
    not valid for the world we inhabit.

    So, how about Noether theorem? Proven
    or not, the question whether it is valid
    should still be open I guess?

    It's really simple and follows from Pauli principle.

    It is fraud.

    I.e., that one thing cannot be in two different places.

    Not at the same time.

    So, it's often represented as that two quantities
    have the same sum, "conservation", simply as of
    after about a symmetry, "same difference" on both
    sides, any what's an "invariant".

    Word salad, meaningless rubbish, fraud.

    The, "continuity" law is often written rather
    simply, "equals zero", so of course the "conservation"
    and "continuity" laws are inextricable.

    Rubbish from rubbish with ridiculous word salad.

    Then, "continuity" law can also be written as
    "conservation" law, and vice versa.

    Rubbish.

    Then, a usual idea in extended bodies is that
    it's more properly, "continuity law".

    Rubbish.

    Misuse of words. Sad.

    Woof woof woof-woof woof

    Bertietaylor

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)