John Berry wrote:
On 3/1/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
If any divergence between inertial and gravitational mass is
ever found, however small it may be, it will be a an enormous blow to
the validity of GR, because it will imply that gravity is /not/ a
fictitious force, after all.
Many experiments have shown differences.
I had never heard of such -- what I'd read was that the Eotvos
experiments, which seem to be the main class of "fall speed" tests
(named for the first researcher to try hard to find a difference), had
all shown that inertial mass and gravitational mass matched. If that's
not true, that's very interesting.
Magnets in repulsion drop slower.
Where did you read this? Can you provide a reference? (This is one I
have not heard of.)
Some materials fall at different rates.
Bismuth was one IIRC, Carbon is another, for instance a carbon sphere
and an iron sphere of equal mass will fall at different rates in an
atmosphere, the carbon one will fall faster despite being less
aerodynamic due to the much larger size!
Fall speed in an atmosphere doesn't seem very apposite. The issue isn't
how it interacts with the air, after all.
Gyroscopes fall at a different rate.
I don't think so -- if so, then what happens when the Hubble spins up a
new gyroscope? Does it change orbits?
But "I don't think so" isn't a proof of anything. So, can you provide a
reference for this one? Where did you run across it?
Do spinning gyroscopes fall faster or slower than their inertial mass
would lead one to expect?
But the largest effect is magnets in (I think always) repulsion which
many have shown to fall much slower, as much as 1/3rd slower.
Again, I'd love to see a reference on that.
I think I also recall mass under compression falls at a different rate.
