设万维读者为首页 广告服务 技术服务 联系我们 关于万维
简体 繁体 手机版
分类广告
版主:诤友
万维读者网 > 教育学术 > 帖子
Could Galileo Be Wrong?
送交者: c_y_lo 2010年10月28日07:57:45 于 [教育学术] 发送悄悄话

Could Galileo Be Wrong?

C. Y. Lo

Applied and Pure Research Institute

7 Taggart Drive, Unit E, Nashua, NH 03060

October 2010

 

Abstract

When the static charge-mass interaction is present, the free falling will be slower. Thus, the 1993 press release of the Nobel Committee on the experimental verifications of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass has been out dated. This shows that general relativity is clearly inadequate, in addition to the NASA’s Pioneer Anomaly.

Key Words: repulsive force, charge-mass interaction, charged capacitors, Pioneer Anomaly.

04.20.-q, 04.20.Cv

 

 

Historically, Galileo showed that objects of different weight would fall with the same speed toward earth. Thus, Aristotle’s thesis that heavier matter falls faster is wrong. However, as Einstein pointed out, one cannot prove a theory with experiments. Thus, it is not clear whether Galileo’s statement is always true.

Now, with the discovery of the charge-mass repulsive force, Galileo could be wrong, but Aristotle would be right. Consider two charged particles such as the electron and the proton. The attractive force toward the proton is much larger than the attractive force toward the electron since their masses have a difference of about 2000 times. However, the charge-mass repulsive forces toward these two particles are the same because they have the same absolute charge [1]. Thus, the electron would fall slower than the proton. This difference should be observable in vacuum.

One may note also that a charged particle would emit electromagnetic wave and thus has a radiative reaction force. However, this force is absent when the acceleration is zero and is negligible for the free fall. Moreover, for the same falling accelerations this slowing down would also make the electron falling slower since the mass of proton is much larger. Moreover, since the neutron has no charge, it would fall faster than the proton and the electron.

Similarly, a charged capacitor would fall slower even though it remains neutral because of the charge-mass interaction [1]. Therefore, the claim of Galileo is actually not valid although his observation is approximately valid. In other words, the test of what the 1993 press release of the Nobel Committee [2] termed “the equivalence principle” (which is actually only intimately connected with Einstein’s equivalence principle [3; p. 58]), the identity between gravitational and inertial mass is valid only when the charge-mass interaction is absent.

Acknowledgments: This work is supported in part by Innotec Design, Inc., U. S. A.

References:

1.         C. Y. Lo, Limitations of Einstein’s Equivalence Principle and the Mass-Charge Repulsive Force, Physics Essays 21 (1), 44-51 (March 2008).

2.         The 1993 Press Release of the Nobel Prize Committee (The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Oct. 1993).

3.         A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity (Princeton Univ. Press 1954).

0%(0)
0%(0)
    Consider a charged capacitor - c_y_lo 10/28/10 (104)
      one more question regarding ur - 紫荆棘鸟 10/28/10 (106)
        或者我记错了,你的公式是 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/28/10 (90)
          THE FORMULA - c_y_lo 10/28/10 (103)
            原来是这条。这才是纠缠在一起的interaction, - 飞星 10/28/10 (111)
              你问老鲁怎么解释地球对光子的作用就成了  /无内容 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/29/10 (92)
                光子和地球没有净电荷,Q1=Q2=0, - 飞星 10/29/10 (84)
                另外老鲁只怕难以解释中子等“净电荷”为0的粒子 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/29/10 (93)
                  他那公式应该也适用于原子核里的粒子作用。但这作用 - 飞星 10/29/10 (84)
                    微不足道与否有关系吗?他的理论不能自恰。  /无内容 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/29/10 (82)
                      怎么不能自洽?他说这公式是从广义相对论里推导出来的。  /无内容 - 飞星 10/29/10 (95)
                        题外话:不是从广义相对论导出的,是用协变原理导出的  /无内容 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/29/10 (79)
                          协变原理 has been proved wrong.  /无内容 - c_y_lo 10/29/10 (68)
                          他那篇文章里不是说了吗, - 飞星 10/29/10 (74)
                            他说了就算?YDX 还说了他从纯欧几里得几何导出了络变换呢 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/29/10 (80)
                              看你整个一出生牛犊的样子啊。 - 飞星 10/29/10 (96)
                                :) 还是询问 X^5=1 有几个实数解的水平:)  /无内容 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/29/10 (69)
                        中子和中子有质电相互作用吗?  /无内容 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/29/10 (79)
                          将中子看成三个夸克,有质电相互作用吗?如何自恰?  /无内容 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/29/10 (81)
                            应该有吧,但微不足道。。。  /无内容 - 飞星 10/29/10 (73)
                              微不足道和自恰有关系吗?不将中子看成夸克,质电相互作用存在吗 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/29/10 (87)
                                干吗你一直推着我去问他呢?你自己没嘴巴吗?  /无内容 - 飞星 10/29/10 (97)
                                  你不是一直说自恰吗?这么明显的破绽,居然说和强相互作用相比微 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/29/10 (76)
                                    你没觉得你说话有点狂傲嘛? - 飞星 10/29/10 (84)
                                      你不俱备基本的思维能力。自恰与否和它的强弱是两码事。 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/29/10 (89)
                                        至于电子对中子的质电作用,我看也可自洽。 - 飞星 10/29/10 (80)
                                          难怪是 YDX 的粉丝:) - 紫荆棘鸟 10/29/10 (86)
                                            鸟妹妹,物理中的正/负 - 飞星 10/29/10 (84)
                                        你没把M,m混淆,能提出这样的质疑吗?这里: - 飞星 10/29/10 (83)
                                          这恰恰表明你混淆了。 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/29/10 (89)
                                            别耍赖了,鸟妹妹。 - 飞星 10/29/10 (88)
                                              typo....作用力 --〉加速度 - 飞星 10/29/10 (84)
            草草看了一下,我的理解如下,不对的请老鲁指正 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/28/10 (87)
              所以这篇文章和我这里问老鲁的问题关系不大。 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/28/10 (85)
                怎么没关系呢?你不是要找他那条公式来理论一番吗? - 飞星 10/28/10 (91)
                  还有,别的不说,老鲁的文章和他这里的结论自相矛盾。 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/28/10 (117)
                    hmm...hmm...这个,要问问罗教授了。  /无内容 - 飞星 10/28/10 (69)
                    不一样。因为电子的m和质子的m不一样。公式里边的m并没去掉。  /无内容 - 飞星 10/28/10 (89)
                      a=F/m,怎么没去掉? - 紫荆棘鸟 10/28/10 (112)
                        hmm...hmm...这个,要问问罗教授了。  /无内容 - 飞星 10/28/10 (94)
                          这个倒没有什么多大的关系,大不了,如果我判断/理解错了 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/28/10 (91)
                            看来他这篇文章里的公式有个typo... - 飞星 10/29/10 (106)
                              再看了一下,是我们误解了。公式没typo. - 飞星 10/29/10 (90)
                              电子或质子的质量 m 没法去掉,这就对引力有影响了。 - 飞星 10/29/10 (79)
                  你似乎颠倒了因果关系 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/28/10 (110)
                    我看不懂他的高深推导。 - 飞星 10/28/10 (83)
                      那就不看其推导 ,光考虑这个作用力的 repulsive 附 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/28/10 (94)
      some doubts -- contradictions - 紫荆棘鸟 10/28/10 (104)
        imagine the following situatio - pzzdm.com 10/28/10 (82)
          for 2 particles with the same - 紫荆棘鸟 10/28/10 (104)
            楼下阿P说得对。  /无内容 - 飞星 10/29/10 (72)
            but photon has no charge  /无内容 - pzzdm.com 10/29/10 (93)
              我问之前不知其公式如何表述的  /无内容 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/29/10 (84)
                F=MQ^2, M, Q has 4 combination  /无内容 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/29/10 (73)
          比较应该基于类似的物质,只是轻重不一而已 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/28/10 (89)
      没有误解。俺其实是说老骆这里搬出 Aristotle 来有作 - 紫荆棘鸟 10/28/10 (94)
标 题 (必选项):
内 容 (选填项):
实用资讯
北美最全的折扣机票网站
贝佳药业美国专利【骨精华】消关节痛、骨刺、五十肩【心血通】改善心绞痛
一周点击热帖 更多>>
一周回复热帖
历史上的今天:回复热帖
2009: 落基山人:西方学术为什么能独立----兼
2009: 大学生勇救落水少年到底能救起什么?
2007: 秦腔乱谈学位
2007: 中国人爱国吗?---谈两种爱国
2006: 申时行: 谈谈苏州杭州的丑女
2006: 鲁重贤:科学家的创新与成熟——与李政
2005: 敢问海外学子为什么
2005: 中国人为什么勤劳却不富有