坠落的身体：明显的，微妙的，错误的
Falling Bodies: the Obvious,the Subtle, and the Wrong
摘要：
几百年前，关于落体的科学争论非常重要，至今仍值得反思。伽利略认为，在真空中，所有的物体相对于地球以相同的速度下落，与它们的质量无关。亚里士多德似乎认为所有的介质都是粘性的，并认为较重的物体下落得更快。菲洛波诺斯（Philoponus）对亚里士多德提出了挑战，他认为轻重量和重重量在空气中下落的速度大致相同，这比伽利略早了一千一百年。正如我们将看到的，这个问题比我们看到的要微妙得多--即使在无摩擦的介质中也是如此。菲洛波努斯和伽利略在某些时候是正确的，亚里士多德在某些时候也是正确的。事实上，在其余的时间里，他们都是错的，当两个物体向地球坠落时，最轻的物体下落得最快。原则上，自由降落实验的结果取决于下落的质量是否起源于地球，是外星的，是连续的还是同时的，或者是同时发生的，或者是分离的物体，等等。爱因斯坦的广义相对论（EGR）认为，引力是由于时空曲率，这是由伽利略的概念，即自由落体是独立于质量和属性的落体，只是由于它发现自己的环境的属性。发现量子力学违反了EGR的等效原理。
英文摘要：
An important scientific debate took place regarding falling bodies hundreds of years ago, and it still warrants introspection. Galileo argued that in a vacuum all bodies fall at the same rate relative to the earth, independent of their mass. Aristotle seemed to consider all media to be viscous, and argued that heavier bodies fall faster. Aristotle was challenged by Philoponus, who argued that light and heavy weights fall about equally fast in air, eleven hundred years before Galileo. As we shall see, the problem is more subtle than meets the eye -- even in a frictionless medium. Philoponus and Galileo are right part of the time, and Aristotle is partly right some of the time. In fact they are all wrong the rest of the time, with the lightest body falling fastest when two bodies fall toward the earth. In principle the results of a free fall experiment depend on whether falling masses originate on earth, are extraterrestrial, are sequential or concurrent, or are simultaneous for coincident or separated bodies, etc. When single falling bodies originate from the earth, all bodies (light and heavy) fall at the same rate relative to the earth in agreement with Galileo's view. Einstein's General Relativity (EGR), in which gravity is due to space-time curvature, was motivated by the Galilean notion that free-fall is independent of the mass and properties of a falling body, and is just due to the properties of the milieu it finds itself in. Quantum mechanics is found to violate the Equivalence Principle of EGR.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
