Consider a square with sides of length 1. The perimeter is 4, the area is 1. Consider a rectangles with long side 1.5 and short side .5. The perimiter is again 4, but the area is .75, contradicting your above assertion about area being determined by perimeter. Your characterisation of Noether's theorem is thus incorrect.
I had hoped that my private correspondence concerning the errors in your earlier "mathematical" posts might result in a retraction. Instead, we get more of the same.
My suggestion to other list-members is that they take Chuck's "mathematical" pronouncements with a large grain of salt.
-- bill
----------------
Okay, I give. I was trying to characterize the idea. The perimeter part is wrong. Consider the area a constant and then alter its shape. The perimeter or surface has to stretch, but the stretch is a constant dilation or contraction.
What private correspondence? The volume on the list high and I might have deleted it, except I doubt that, since I have been looking for some kind of response. You're certainly welcome to re-send them or post them as you wish.
And, if you think my characterization of the rest of the background was inaccurate, please feel free to offer your own. I didn't post it as a pronouncement. I was trying to lay out a background to follow the more extended philosophical implications to the conservation of energy. That was actually the real point to the post.
Chuck Grimes