« Last post by mxplxxx on Today at 06:02:14 »
So, it would seem that physics cannot precisely define what energy is. That would seem to make measuring the energy of a photon very difficult! Sort of like a Will of the Wisp:)
Good, then GR gives a 1/R for a spiral galaxy
Thx PmbPhy. You point out that defining something like energy is not easy. I couldn't agree more. But you don't give Feynman's definition of energy. In fact you say:In fact my page doesn't define energy. It just describes the concept. I should have pointed that out. Feynman doesn't define energy either.
Richard Feynman wrote 
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and we add it all together it gives 28 - always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.
I think that even good theories etc can have a circular argument, as long as u know, but not knowing can i think lead to a bloody war. The main circular argument in SR & GR is that much of GR is modeled around ensuring that the constancy of the speed of light is retained, eg near mass, eg invoking time dilation & length contraction near mass to yield the slowing of light near mass.
It would be handy to have easy access to such a list of precessions for all the planets. But so difficult to find.
I wonder why. Must be a good reason. Thinking thinking thinking.
COMPARE THE SIMPLE MATH COMPUTATION, USING SEMILATUS RECTUM COMPUTATION B TO RELATIVISTIC COMPUTATION PER ANNEX B. SEE THE FIGURES FOR ALL PLANETS. THEY ARE THE SAME AND EXACT.!!IT PROVES THAT THE COMPUTATION OF DR. EINSTEIN IS THAT WAY, WORK BACK.
Here is some good wordage re this.Just as I thought, no evidence, just a bunch of unverified suspicions. Yes.
I wonder whether there is a circular argument in there somewhere.Explain how.
But in any case all it takes is one disagreement to sink the equationWhich is not evidence that such a disagreement actually exists.
i believe that Mars or Venus does just that.I don't what you "believe". Give me a link to a reputable source showing that the precession of Mars and Venus clash with relativity's predictions.
Thx PmbPhy. You point out that defining something like energy is not easy. I couldn't agree more. But you don't give Feynman's definition of energy. In fact you say:The definition is on my website atYou might find a discussion more to your taste in a forum devoted to New Age thinking or even metaphysicsCondescending! You asked me for my definition of energy. I gave it:).
Its what Feynman used in his Lectures.
Yes & using some kind of relativistic mass increase to help get a number is fraud. Altho i might be happy to go along with a relativistic momentum increase, but definitely not a mass increase, the momentum increase being due to length contraction & or ticking dilation (not due to any silly kind of mass increase). Especially bearing in mind that re momentum (& everything else) u can probly have a true momentum, & an actual momentum, & a measured momentum (three possible momentums), but re mass u can have a true mass & a measured mass (but not an actual mass)(the actual mass never changes)(its the true mass).I doubt that the bending of light stuff re GR helps here. Re the jiggering, this was i think the invoking of relativistic mass. I dont think that relativistic mass comes into the bending of light near the Sun.Relativistic mass comes into play in the precession equation, as stated in your quoted bit. It wasn't talking about light bending.