How is physics "proved"?

>>8943508
Physical experimentation.

>>8943508
Nothing in physics is proven.

Physics has laws that operate the same way mathematics has axioms. The difference is that these laws have to be observed. I might be wrong, but aren't axioms arbitrarily defined? I'm using arbitrary loosely because I'm sure there is a better term.

Axioms can be arbitrarily defined, but that doesn't mean your theory will be meaningful

Logical proofs of models don't exist, but logical proofs on the maths used in those models are still important.
Hypothesis testing is generally accepted as proof if the experiment follows all the usual scientific stuff I'm sure you're aware of (repeatability, non-bias, controlled, verified predictions etc...)

>>8943508
Physics has no proofs. It is more emotion based reasoning as opposed to logic based reasoning like math.

>>8943524
The first axioms were formulated in accordance with truths that were homologous to reality. Most axioms have basically been corollary of those, although several have also been convoluted "arbitrarily". This is why physics and math are intertwined.

>>8943549
(You)

>>8943508
Holy shit you're a bunch of retards. Physics is never proved and what you get through a physical model is only a glimpse of reality that fits a given observation. We keep on improving these models and time and time again we see that through more observations they are more and more flawed or incompatible with other theories. The only deciding factor in physics is whether or not is your model compatible with observation and how well can it predict physical phenomena. That's it.

File: tesla.jpg (100KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 850x400px

>>8943508
Daily reminder that Einstein was a hack and that special relativity is bullshit