Re: How can light travel without losing energy?

In article <dguv19$r5b$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Einar_Andreas_R=F8dland?= <e.a.rodland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Actually, no. What I am stating is that the proofs of Hubble's theory
>> depend on those assumptions. Where physicists follow the rigorous
>> standards of the better pure mathematicians and say:
>>
>> Assuming hypotheses X, Y and Z, we show that ....
>>
>> I am happy. There is nothing wrong with assuming that physical laws
>> and constants are invariant, provided that you admit that you are doing
>> so without conclusive proof and that your conclusions are void if it
>> turns out not to be the case.
>
>I'm not following you on this. Pure mathematicians make statements
>about mathematical objects, not about reality.

So do theoretical physicists :-)

>In physics, the axioms are those specifying the fundamental theories
>of physics, and the fundamental question is what set of axioms
>describes nature...or describes it better. That questions cannot be
>answered from within the axiomatic system. To ask for proof (in the
>mathematical sense) that the axioms are true is thus rather pointless.

Yes, that is true. But too many physicists forget that, and start to
assume that their favourite axioms are true beyond questioning. That
is dogma, not science.

The whole point of what I am saying is that many of the 'disproofs'
of radical alternative theories rely on such dogma. In this case,
the axiom that physical laws and constants are temporarily and
spatially invariant has no reliable support from observation, and
is critical to the proof that recession is the cause of the red
shift.

The generic statement:

That theory has been proved to be false.

should almost always be corrected to:

The original formulation of that theory has been proved to be
false, and it seems unlikely that a reformulation will match
observed facts even as well as the currently accepted theory.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Skolems Paradox and why is math the way it is?
    ... If they're using the same axioms then they're limited to the same ... Why do you physicists always blather about things that nobody has ever ... Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity
    ... When I read textbooks like the one you recommended, ... create a very complex mathematical theory based on those axioms. ... Is there any proof that light always travels at c? ... Physicists define that the meter length is: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity
    ... create a very complex mathematical theory based on those axioms. ... Is there any proof that light always travels at c? ... Physicists define that the meter length is: ... I think you are just an unconventional supporter of ether theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Skolems Paradox and why is math the way it is?
    ... >> are characteristics of the MODELS used to by SOME physicists. ... > simple fact by asking us to change the axioms and are so proud of your ... only responded to someone else saying that I did, ... anything except that I'm bad at spelling. ...
    (sci.math)