1

1 On Experimental Confirmation of the Einstein Equation

2 and

3 the Charge-Mass Repulsive Force

5 C. Y. Lo & C. Wong
6 Applied and Pure Research Institute
7 7 Taggart Drive, Unit E, Nashua, NH 03060 USA
8 July 2010

10 Abstract

11 Einstein gives three predictions to support general relativity. However, the Einstein equation, which was first derived by

12Hilbert, has not been accurately confirmed beyond what the Maxwell-Newton Approximation can do. The gravitational
13redshifts, the bending light, and radar echo delay can be obtained from the Maxwell-Newton Approximation derived from
14Einstein’s equivalence principle. As Gullstrand suspected, it is proven that there is no dynamic solution and thus the perihelion
15of Mercury cannot be derived from the Einstein equation. Moreover, the Hulse-Taylor experiment of binary pulsars actually
16supports a modified Einstein equation. So far, the only exception is the derivation of the metric for a charged particle because
17the electromagnetic energy-stress tensor is involved. It has been shown that this metric implies a repulsive force mq 2/r3
18between a charge q and a mass m, separated with a distance r. Thus, the experimental confirmation of this neutral force
19provides the only case to verify the static Einstein equation. Although it has been shown experimentally that a metal ball
20becomes lighter after charged with electrons, more detailed data are needed to confirm the repulsive force and distinguish its
21formula from claims of other theories.
22

23

2404.20.-q, 04.20.Cv
25Key Words: pioneer anomaly, repulsive force, charge-mass interaction, charged capacitors, E = mc2.
26

2
 1 2 APRI-TH-PHY-002-10

11. Introduction

2 Einstein’s general relativity was regarded as a top scientific achievement, although it was very difficult to

3understand. Observations accurately confirm the three predictions of Einstein [1, 2], namely: 1) the gravitational redshifts, 2)
4the perihelion of Mercury, and 3) the deflection of light. Einstein’s accurate predictions created a faith to his theory. Recently
5it was found, however, that the difficulties arose, in part, due to its being not a self-consistent theory [3-8].
6 There are issues relating to the confirmation of the predictions of Einstein’s theory:

71) The gravitational redshifts were first derived from Einstein’s 1911 preliminary assumption of the equivalence between
8 acceleration and Newtonian gravity. However, Fock [9] found that it is impossible to have a metric that is consistent with

9 uniform Newtonian gravity. 1) This shows that the gravitational redshifts can be derived from an invalid theory.

102) The observed bending of light is inconsistent with Einstein’s theory of measurement [10]. However, the observed bending
11 is consistent with the measurement based on the Euclidean-like structure if Einstein’s equivalence principle is valid [8].

123) Gullstrand [11] suspected that the Einstein equation may not produce a solution for a two-body problem. For the dynamic
13 cases, it has been proven that the Einstein equation needs to be modified [5].

144) From both the Schwarzschild and the harmonic solution, Einstein obtained the same first order deflection of light in terms
15 of the shortest distance from the sun’s center [1, 2]. Then, in support of his covariance principle, Einstein [2] remarked,

16 “It should be noted that this result, also, of the theory is not influenced by our arbitrary choice of a system of

17 coordinates.” However, it has been shown [6] that such requirements of gauge invariance, actually are not satisfied.

18Thus, Einstein’s covariance principle is proven to be invalid [6], and diffeomorphic solutions with the same frame of reference

19 are not equivalent in physics although they are equivalent in mathematics. Recently, it is found [8] that Einstein’s
20 justifications for his theory of measurement are based on invalid applications of special relativity which is applicable only for
21 a flat space. This discovery is the last straw that breaks the back of the camel of Einstein’s erroneous theory of measurements
22 [8].
23 Fortunately, the Maxwell-Newton approximation has been proven to be a valid first order approximation for gravity due

24to massive sources [12], so that the binary pulsar radiation experiments can be explained satisfactorily [5, 13]. Thus, Einstein’s
25notion of weak gravity is valid [12, 13]. Moreover, the Hulse-Taylor experiments of the binary pulsars validity necessitate that
26the coupling constants have different signs [5]. Thus, the assumption of a unique coupling sign for the singularity theorems
27[14] of Penrose and Hawking are invalid. Moreover, it leads to the investigation that Lo [15] discovered the static charge-mass
28neutral repulsive force, and thus proves the famous formula E= mc2 being only conditionally valid.
29 Nevertheless, as shown in the 1993 press release of the Nobel Committee for the Physics Prize [16], the “experts”

30failed to see that the Einstein equation does not have a dynamic solution for a two-body problem. Consequently, they also

2 2
 1 3 APRI-TH-PHY-002-10

1failed to see that there are energies that are not equivalent to mass [15, 17]. As a result, they also over-looked that the Einstein

2equation actually necessitates the existence of a charge-mass interaction [15, 18, 19].
3 Fortunately, in 2005 the effect of such a repulsive force was inadvertently detected by Tsipenyuk & Andreev [20].

4They discovered that the weight of a metal ball is reduced after it is irradiated with high energy electrons. However, they could
5not explain this phenomenon 2) because they did not account for the static charge-mass repulsive force discovered by Lo [15] in
61997. However, by the time of 2005, there is another explanation for the reduction of weight by Yarman [21] whose theory is
7based on unconditional validity of E = mc2 and Newtonian gravity, but he rejected general relativity [21, 22].
8 Based on Einstein’s equation, 3) the neutral repulsive force derived by Lo [15, 18] is: For a charge q and a mass m

9separated by a distance r, the charge-mass repulsive force is mq2/r3 (in the units, light speed c = 1, and Newtonian coupling
10constant κ = 1 [23]). Thus, in view of the 1/r3 dependence, the formula of Lo is distinguishable from the theory of Yarman
11[21].
12 In this paper, we suggest an experiment with the “torsion balance” to find out more detailed data such that one can

13verify whether Lo’s formula originated from general relativity or the theory of Yarman, which maintains the 1/r 2-dependence,
14is appropriate. To this end, we will first start with a discussion of the Einstein equation.
15

162. The Einstein Equation in General Relativity and E = mc2

17 The Einstein equation (in the units, the light speed c = 1 and the Newtonian gravitational coupling κ = 1 [23]) is,

18 Gµν ≡ Rµν – g1µνR = – 8π Tµν , (1)

2

19where Gµν is the Einstein tensor, Rµν is the Ricci curvature tensor, and Tµν is the sum of energy stress tensor. 3) In general

20relativity [1, 2], Einstein and his followers discussed only the special case when the source is of massive matter, i.e.,

22 Gµν ≡ Rµν – 1 gµνR = – KT (m)µν , (2)

2

23where T(m)µν is the energy-stress tensor for massive matter, and K (= 8πκc-P2 = 1.87× 10-27 [1]). Thus,

24 Gµν ≡ Rµν – 1 gµνR = 0, or Rµν = 0, (2’)

2

25in a vacuum. However, (2') implies that there is no gravitational wave to carry away energy-momentum. This violates the

26principle of causality since a wave carries away energy and momentum. This is the physical reason that the Einstein equation
27cannot have a bounded dynamic solution [5, 7, 13] as the Hulse-Taylor experiments requires. 4)
28 To deal with experiments of the binary pulsars, our modified Einstein equation of 1995 [5] is necessarily,

2 3
 1 4 APRI-TH-PHY-002-10

1 Gµν ≡ Rµν – 1 gµνR = – K [T(m)µν – t(g)µν], (3)

2

2where t(g)μν is the energy-stress tensors for gravity. 5) From (3), the equation in vacuum is

3 Gµν ≡ Rµν – 1 gµνR = K t(g)µν . (3’)

2

4Note that t(g)μν is equivalent to Einstein's gravitational pseudotensor in terms of his radiation formula.

5 Then, the linearization of equation (3) is the Maxwell-Newton Approximation [5],

1 1
6 ∂ c∂ c γ µν = – K T(m) µν , where γ µν = γ µν – ηµν(ηcdγ cd), γ µν = gµν – ηµν, (4)
2 2

7where ημν is the flat metric. Moreover, with the help of (4), the binary pulsars experiments support the validity of the eq. (3) [5,

813], 6)
although the modification is not yet complete since the exact form of t(g) µν remains to be found. However, the

9linearized equation (4) may be physically invalid if the source is not massive matter [24]. Nevertheless, Wald [14, p. 183]
10erroneously extended the process to the case when the initial metric of the perturbation is not flat. This illustrates that those
11“experts” do not understand the mathematics related to the Einstein equation, and particularly the dynamics case.
12 For the static case, accurate predictions were made for the bending of light, and radar echo delay with different

13gauges for the same frame of reference [23]. However, the accuracy of experiments has not been able to tell whether the static
14Einstein equation is better than the Maxwell-Newton Approximation. Thus, it is difficult to say that the Einstein equation has
15been established for the static case. However, a metric for a charge particle is the case that the Maxwell-Newton
16Approximation has not covered. Thus, this problem provides a unique opportunity to establish the static Einstein equation.
17 However, it should be noted that in the literature of general relativity, almost all the attention was on the sources of

18massive matter. If all the energy is equivalent to mass (since E = mc 2 being unconditional), there is little point to study
19gravitational sources other than massive matter; and all the coupling constant should have the same sign. This is clear invalid
20according to equation (3) which is necessary because equation (2) does not have a bounded dynamic solution [5].
21 The misinterpretation of E = mc2 as being unconditional has a deep root of errors starting from Einstein’s assumption

22of photons having only electromagnetic energy [1]. In 1905, Einstein thought that he has proven that electromagnetic energy is
23equivalent to mass [1]. Then, at least from 1905 to 1909, Einstein attempted, but failed to prove that other forms of energy
24also equivalent to mass [25]. Such attempts were natural since energy conservation would suggest that all types of energy
25would be equivalent. What Einstein failed to see is that the electromagnetic energy is not equivalent to mass, although the
26energy of photons does [26]. In fact, it is natural that photons include the gravitational waves since a charged particle is always
27massive.

2 4
 1 5 APRI-TH-PHY-002-10

23. The Neutral Charge-Mass Repulsive Force Originated form General Relativity
3 The misinterpretation of the formula E = mc2 as unconditionally valid, has been proven a great obstacle to the

4progress of theoretical physics. First, if photons include gravitational energy, it is difficult to continue claiming that quantum
5mechanics, which is based on the assumption that photons includes only electromagnetic energy, is a finally theory. Second, if
6photons must include gravitational energy, general relativity is obviously not just a theory only for macroscopic phenomena.
7 Moreover, if E = mc2 is only conditionally valid, the existence of black holes can no longer be guaranteed even in

8theory since gravity may not always be attractive as assumed [27]; the singularity theorems of Penrose and Hawking [14] may
9not be relevant to physics since their crucial assumption of unique coupling sign has been proven invalid. Thus, both the big
10bang theory and the big crunch assumption lost their theoretical foundation.
11 Understandably, Lo’s paper on conditional validity of E = mc2 [15] was reviewed for more than four and a half year

12before it is published in 1997 because Will [28] and other theorists failed in defending the unconditional validity. Nevertheless,
13the misinterpretation was revived in 2003 [29]. Moreover, the editor of the Physical Review D, Eric J. Weinberg demanded a
14proof beyond electromagnetism 7) for the conditional validity of E = mc2. Now, such a proof has already been inadvertently
15provided by Tsipenyuk & Andreev [20] since a charged metal ball has increased its total energy, but the weight is reduced.
16 The failure in discovering the static charge-mass interaction lies on misinterpretations and conceptual errors [17, 29].

17The derivation is straight forward from the Reissner-Nordstrom metric [30, 31] for a charge particle Q. The metric is as
18follows:
−1
 2M q 2  2  2M q 2 
19 ds = 1 −
2
+ 2 dt − 1 − + 2  dr 2 − r 2 dΩ2 , (5)
 r r   r r 

20where q and M are the charge and mass of the particle Q and r is the radial distance (in terms of the Euclidean-like structure

21[32, 33]) from the particle center. Here, the gravitational components generated by electricity have not only a very different
22radial coordinate dependence but also a different sign that makes it a new repulsive gravity. Nevertheless, journals such as
23Science and Nature still hold on to unconditional validity of E = mc2 [28, 34], due to an inadequate understanding of general
24relativity.
25 Moreover, some argued that the effective mass could be considered as M – q2/2r (c =1) since the total electric energy

26outside a sphere of radius r is q2/2r [18]. Then, if any energy has a mass equivalence, an increase of energy should lead to an
27increment of gravitational strength. However, although energy increases by the presence of a charge, the strength of a
28gravitational force, as shown by metric (5), decreases everywhere. Thus, the unconditional validity of E = mc 2 is a
29misinterpretation.

2 5
 1 6 APRI-TH-PHY-002-10

1 Nevertheless, theorists such as Herrera, Santos & Skea [35] argued in 2003 that M in (5) includes the external electric

2energy. They overlooked that this would create a double counting of the electric energy in two different ways [18, 23].
3Moreover, the gravitational forces would be different from the force created by the “effective mass” M – q2/2r. In addition, if
4M included the external electric energy, then the inertial mass m0 of the electron would be much smaller than M.8) Moreover,
5according to the Einstein equation for the metric [14], since the electromagnetic energy-stress tensor is traceless, curvature R
6is independent of the electromagnetic energy-stress tensor. Therefore, the electric energy cannot be equivalent to the mass.
7 To show the static effect, one needs to consider only gtt in metric (5). According to Einstein, the equation of motion is

d 2 xµ dx µ dxν
8 + Γ µ
α β = 0, where Γ µ α β = (∂ α gν β+ ∂ β gν α− ∂ν gα β) g µ ν/ 2 (6)
ds 2 ds ds

9and ds 2 = g µνdx µdx ν . Let us consider only the static case, dx/ds = dy/ds = dz/ds = 0. Thus,

d 2xµ dct dct 1 ∂g ∂g 1 ∂g tt µ ν

10 = −Γµ tt , where − Γ µ tt = − (2 tν − νtt ) g µ ν = g (7)
ds 2
ds ds 2 ∂ct ∂x 2 ∂xν

11since gµν would also be static. Note that the gauge affects only the second order approximation of gt t [36]. For example,

 2M 2M 2   2M 
12 g tt ≈ 1 − + 2 + ...  and g tt = 1 −  (8)
 r r   r 
 

13are with respect to the harmonic gauge and the Schwarzschild solution, but the second order term is negligible.

14 For a particle P with mass m at r, since gr r ≅ -1, the force on P in the first order approximation is

M q2
15 −m +m . (9a)
r2 r3

16Thus, the second term is a repulsive force. If the particles are at rest, then the action and reaction forces are equal and in

17opposite directions. The force acting on the charged particle Q has the same magnitude

M q 2 r̂ r̂ is a unit vector.
18 (m −m ) , where (9b)
r2 r3

19Thus, the first term is the attractive interaction between two masses M and m, and the second term is the repulsive force

20between the charged particle Q and the neutral particle P. The second term is very small for this two particles.
21 Now, consider a metal ball charged with electrons, whose charge is e and mass m0. Then, the term M is increased by

22 Nm0 that is linearly with respect to the number N of electrons, but the term q2 would be increasing with respect to N2e2.
23 Thus, a net repulsive force would results after the metal ball is sufficiently charged [18]. This is why the metal ball would
24 appear to have less weight than before charged. This explains the observed reduction of weight [20].

2 6
 1 7 APRI-TH-PHY-002-10

1 If approximation (9a) is valid as shown, then one would observe the 1/r 3 distance dependence of the repulsive force,

2 where r is the distance from the center of the metal ball. This can be measured with the “torsion balance” at different
3 distance r from the center while the metal ball is charged with different charges. When the number of electrons is
4 sufficiently large, the increased attractive force due the mass of the additional electrons would be smaller than the increased
5 repulsive force. This effect would be observed at smaller “r” first. This experiment is also a test of general relativity since
6 equation (9a) is based on general relativity. Moreover, this new force would lead to the existence of a five-dimensional
7 space (see Appendix).
8

94. Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravitation and the Five Dimension Theory
10 If the particles P and Q are at rest, then the action and reaction forces are equal and in opposite directions as shown in

11(9b). However, if one calculates the space-time metric according to the particle P of mass m, only the first term would be
12obtained. Thus, the geodesic equation is inadequate for the equation of motion. Moreover, since the second term is
13proportional to q2, it is not a Lorentz force, nor the radiation reaction force since the charged particle remains static.
14 Thus, it is necessary to have a repulsive force with the coupling q 2 to the charged particle Q in a gravitational field

15generated by masses. It thus follows that, force (9b) to particle Q is beyond current theoretical framework of gravitation +
16electromagnetism. In other words, as predicted by Lo, Goldstein, and Napier [37], Einstein’s general relativity leads to a
17realization of the inadequacy of general relativity just as electricity and magnetism lead to the exposition of their
18shortcomings. Since this repulsive force is independent of the charge sign, an immediate question would be whether such a
19neutral repulsive force mq2/r3 is subjected to electromagnetic screening. It is conjectured that this force, being independent of a
20charge sign, would not be subjected to such a screening [19] although it should be, according to general relativity.
21 A theoretical framework to accommodate the necessity of unification and the new neutral force being not subject to

22 electromagnetic screening, would be the five-dimensional theory of Lo et al. [37]. From the viewpoint of their five-
23 dimensional theory, this new force can be considered as a result of a field created by the mass m and the field interacts with
24 the q2 [19]. Thus such a field is independent of the electromagnetic field and is beyond general relativity. A test of this five-
25 dimensional theory would be to measure the effect due to possibly such a force acting on a charged capacitor since it has
26 concentrated charges and is self-screening. To verify their five-dimensional relativity, the existence of such a force on a
27 capacitor was first performed by Liu [38] 9) although the weight reduction of charged capacitors have been found much earlier
28 [39-41]. However, the r -3-dependence (unlike r -2-dependence) is difficult to test because it would be sensitive to the local
29 surroundings [29].
30 Attempts to explain weight reduction of a capacitor after charged have been made; but all failed since the 50s. 10) For

31instance, Buehler [39] concluded that the force could not be directly associated with the interaction of the electric and

2 7
 1 8 APRI-TH-PHY-002-10

1magnetic fields of the earth. Masha et al. [40, 41] also conceded that we must search for an explanation on their experiments.

2This is consistent with the fact that the charge-mass repulsive force on a capacitor is not derivable from a four-dimension
3theory.
4

55. Conclusions and Discussions

6 It is interesting that effect of the static charge-mass interaction was first discovered as a weight reduction of charged

7capacitors. Thus, to explain this phenomenon is beyond general relativity, and very likely incomprehensible in terms of a four
8-dimensional space. This is the first physical evidence of a higher dimensional space that the string theorists assumed without
9any supporting evidence from physics. Now, the establishment of the static charge-mass interaction is possibly the most
10important consequence of general relativity.
11 The electromagnetism is an interaction among charges and the gravitation is an interaction among masses. A naive

12question would be whether there is an interaction between charge and mass. From the viewpoint of physics, it should have
13because any charged particle has a mass. Now, we have derived such a static interaction and verified it with experiments.
14Thus, such an interaction is real and can no longer be regarded as just a speculation as before. Obviously, just
15electromagnetism is not limited to the Coulomb force; and there should be a current-mass interaction.
16 If the electric energy leads to a repulsive force toward a mass, according to general relativity, the magnetic energy

17would lead to an attractive force from a current toward a mass [19, 27]. The existence of such a current-mass attractive force
18has been inadvertently discovered and verified by Martin Tajmar and Clovis de Matos [42] from the European Space Agency.
19They found that a spinning ring of superconducting material increases its weight much more than expected. Thus, they
20believed that general relativity had been proven wrong. However, according to quantum theory, spinning superconductors
21should produce a weak magnetic field. Thus, they are measuring also the interaction between an electric current and the earth!
22 Einstein was really a genius and the full meaning of general relativity is still emerging after 100 years although he

23also made mistakes. It is interesting that while his proposal of the photon earned Einstein a Nobel Prize in Physics, his
24imperfect assumption of photons having only electromagnetic energy prevented him from discovering the charge-mass
25interaction.
26 Now, with discovery of the charge-mass interaction, the door for research in physics is again wide open in both the

27area of theoretical and experimental physics. Fundamental researches in physics are no longer limited to the standard model
28based on the Yang-Mill theory and the string theory based on mathematical speculations! Unfortunately, some well known
29theorists still try very hard to make physical sense out of just any solution of Einstein’s equation [6, 8, 43, 44].

2 8
 1 9 APRI-TH-PHY-002-10

1 To facilitate the developments of physics, the Nobel Committee should rectify the errors due to invalid mathematic in

2the 1993 press release for the Nobel Prize in Physics [16]. This is meaningful because general relativity has a unique problem,
3which is exceptional among all branch of physics, there is no expert in the field of general relativity [5, 6, 8] after 95 years of
4being perceived as the towering theory that can provide guidance to other branches of physics.

5Acknowledgments

6 The author gratefully acknowledge stimulating discussions with S. -J. Chang, A. J. Coleman, Z. G. Deng, G. R.

7Goldstein, J. Ho, A. Napier, D. Rabounski, G. Sobczyk, Eric J. Weinberg, and T. Yarman,. Special thanks are to Sharon

8Holcombe for valuable suggestions. This work is supported in part by Innotec Design, Inc., USA and the Chan Foundation,
9Hong Kong.
10

11Appendix: Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence, the Einstein-Minkowski Condition

12 Einstein’s equivalence principle is stated clearly in “The Meaning of Relativity” [2] as follows:

13 ‘Let now K be an inertial system. Masses which are sufficiently far from each other and from other bodies are

14 then, with respect to K, free from acceleration. We shall also refer these masses to a system of co-ordinates K’,

15 uniformly accelerated with respect to K. Relatively to K’ all the masses have equal and parallel accelerations;

16 with respect to K’ they behave just as if a gravitational field were present and K’ were unaccelerated.

17 Overlooking for the present the question as to the “cause’ of such a gravitational field, which will occupy us

18 latter, there is nothing to prevent our conceiving this gravitational field as real, that is, the conception that K’; is

19 “at rest” and a gravitational field is present we may consider as equivalent to the conception that only K is an

20 ”allowable” system of co-ordinates and no gravitational field is present. The assumption of the complete

21 physical equivalence of the systems of coordinates, K and K’, we call the “principle of equivalence;” this

22 principle is evidently intimately connected with the law of the equality between the inert and the gravitational

23 mass, and signifies an extension of the principle of relativity to coordinate systems which are non-uniform

24 motion relatively to each other.’

25This principle is different from Einstein’s 1911 assumption of equivalence with Newtonian gravity [1].

26 The Einstein-Minkowski condition [1, p. 161] has its foundation from mathematical theorems [45] as follows:

27 Theorem 1. Given any point P in any Lorentz manifold (whose metric signature is the same as a Minkowski space) there

28 always exist coordinate systems (xµ) in which ∂gµν/∂xλ = 0 at P.

29 Theorem 2. Given any time-like geodesic curve Γ there always exists a coordinate system (so-called Fermi coordinates)

30 (xµ) in which ∂gµν/∂xλ = 0 along Γ.

2 9
 1 10 APRI-TH-PHY-002-10

1Thus, the local space of a particle is locally constant, although not necessarily Minkowski. What Einstein added to these

2theorems is that physically such a locally constant metric must be Minkowski. Such a condition is needed for special relativity
3[2]. In fact, Einstein [1, p. 144] has given an example that illustrates Pauli’s errors. However, like Pauli [46], few understand
4Einstein’s equivalence principle correctly [47] because of inadequate background in pure mathematics.
5 Pauli’s version is mistakenly regarded [48] as Einstein’s equivalence principle [1]. Pauli’s [46] version is as follows:

6 “For every infinitely small world region (i.e. a world region which is so small that the space- and time-variation of

7 gravity can be neglected in it) there always exists a coordinate system K 0 (X1, X2, X3, X4) in which gravitation has no

8 influence either in the motion of particles or any physical process.”

9Based on Einstein’s equivalence principle, it is proven that a physical space must have a frame of reference with a Euclidean-

10like structure [32]. However, Einstein’s equivalence principle was still not understood until the space contractions and the time
11dilation for the case of a rotating disk were explicitly derived [49, 50]. 11) In fact, in the 1993 press release on the Nobel Prize
12in Physics [16], 12) Einstein’s equivalence principle is implicitly rejected, in addition to other theoretical errors.
13

14ENDNOTES:

151) Fock [9], Ohanian & Ruffini and Wheeler [51] and etc. have mistaken the equivalence assumption of 1911 that a

16 uniform Newtonian gravity (generated by a scalar potential) is equivalent to a uniformly accelerated frame, with the

17 equivalence principle of 1916 [1, 2]. Moreover, Fock [9] found it impossible to express a uniform Newtonian gravity in

18 terms of a spacetime metric. Based on the above misidentification, they claimed that Einstein’s equivalence principle is

19 invalid (see also Appendix A). Recently, they are proven wrong because the metric for a uniform gravity has been

20 derived [50].

212) Recently, G. Sobczyk and T. Yarman informed us the important results of reference [20].

223) The Einstein equation with a source of massive matter is actually first derived by Hilbert [52]. However, with a source

23 involved electromagnetism, such an equation is first proposed by Einstein [1, 2].

244) An evidence that Einstein equation has no bounded wave solution is that the calculated gravitational radiation depends

25 upon the method of approximation used [53].

265) The energy-stress for gravity t(g)μν should be a tensor [5] although Einstein considered it to be a pseudo-tensor.

276) P. Morrison of MIT also recognized errors in the 1993 press release of the Nobel Committee. He went to Princeton a

28 few times to discuss with Taylor the calculations of the pulsar radiation [49]. Note also that Christodoulou &

29 Klainerman [54] of Princeton incorrectly claimed their success in constructing dynamic solutions [55, 56].

307) For this, one of the authors (Lo) would like to thank Eric J. Weinberg for his demand that leads to new discovery.

2 10
 1 11 APRI-TH-PHY-002-10

18) 7Misner et al. [23; p. 841] point out that M is the total mass as measured by a distant observer using the Keplerian orbits

2 of electrically neutral particles. In other words, for an electron, the constant M is m 0 , the accelerated mass of the

3 electron.

49) According to m = E/c2, the mass increment of a charged capacitor is negligible. For a capacitor of 200µF charged to

5 1000 volt, the related mass increment would be about 10-12 gram.

610) Some related experiments can be stated in the Biefeld–Brown effect, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld–Brown_effect

711) For instance, just as Pauli [46], ‘t Hooft [44], Misner et al. [23] etc., due to inadequate background in pure mathematics
8 [47], failed in understanding Einstein’s equivalence principle. ‘t Hooft also did not see that the operation of linearization

9 to obtain an approximate solution may be invalid. However, he does understand the need of a bounded solution.

10 Einstein, Infeld, & Hoffman [57] did not even recognize the need for proving the boundedness of a solution. Currently,

11 when knowledge in pure mathematics is required, some physicists make mistakes inadvertently, although they are very

12 good otherwise. For example, Pauli was a bright theoretical physicist, and ‘t Hooft is an excellent applied

13 mathematician. Nevertheless, they both failed to understand Einstein’s equivalence principle (see Appendix A).

1412) The Nobel Laureates are selected by a Nobel Committee that consists of five members elected by The Royal Swedish
15 Academy of Sciences. In its first stage, several thousand people are asked to nominate candidates. These names are

16 scrutinized and discussed by experts until only the winners remain. The nomination and selection process for the Nobel

17 Prize in Physics is usually long and rigorous. This is a key reason why these Nobel Prizes have grown in importance

18 over the years to become the most important prizes in Physics. On the other hand, any error of the Nobel Committee in

19 physics is almost certainly an error of those considered to be experts in the field.

20

21References:

221. A. Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, H. Minkowski, H. Weyl, The Principle of Relativity (Dover, New York, 1952).

232. A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity (1922) (Princeton Univ. Press, 1974); Einstein added Appendix II in 1950.

243. A. N. Whitehead, The Principle of Relativity (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1922).

254. A. S. Eddington, The Mathematical Theory of Relativity (1923) (Chelsea, New York, 1975), p. 10.

265. C. Y. Lo, Astrophys. J. 455, 421-428 (Dec. 20, 1995); Editor S. Chandrasekhar, a Nobel Laureate, suggests and approves
27 the Appendix: The Gravitational Energy-Stress Tensor for the necessity of modifying Einstein equation.

286. C. Y. Lo, On Gauge Invariance in Physics & Einstein’s Covariance Principle, Phys. Essays, 23 (3), (Sept. 2010). Bulletin
29 of Pure and Applied Sciences, 27D (1), 1-15 (2008).

2 11
 1 12 APRI-TH-PHY-002-10

17. C. Y. Lo, Astrophys. Space Sci., 306: 205-215 (2006) (DOI 10.1007/s10509-006-9221-x).

28. C. Y. Lo, Rectifiable Inconsistencies and Related Problems in General Relativity, Phys. Essays, 23 (2), 258-267
3 (2010).Phys. Essays 18 (1), 547-560 (December, 2005).

49. V. A. Fock, The Theory of Space Time and Gravitation, translated by N. Kemmer (Pergamon Press, 1964).

510. C. Y. Lo, On Criticisms of Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, Phys. Essays 16 (1), 84-100 (March 2003).

611. A. Gullstrand, Ark. Mat. Astr. Fys. 16, No. 8 (1921); ibid, Ark. Mat. Astr. Fys. 17, No. 3 (1922).

712. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 12 (3), 508-526 (Sept. 1999).

813. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 13 (1), 527-539 (December, 2000).

914. R. M. Wald, General Relativity (The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).

1015. C. Y. Lo, Astrophys. J. 477, 700 (1997).

1116. The Press Release of the Nobel Prize Committee (The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Oct. 1993).

1217. C. Y. Lo, Misinterpretation of E = mc 2 and Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, Bulletin of Pure and Applied
13 Sciences, 25D (1), 41- 47 (2006).

1418. C. Y. Lo & C. Wong, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 25D (2), 109-117 (2006).

1519. C. Y. Lo, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 26D (1), 29 - 42 (2007).

1620. D. Yu. Tsipenyuk, V. A. Andreev, Physical Interpretations of the Theory of Relativity Conference, Bauman Moscow State
17 Technical University, 4 – 7 July 2005. Dr Andreev's e-mail address is andrvlad@yandex.ru.

1821. T. Yarman, Foundations of Physics Letters, 19 (7), 675-693 (December 2006).

1922. G. Sobczyk & T. Yarman, Appl. Comput. Math. 7 (2008), no.2, pp.255-268.

2023. C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, & J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973).

2124. C. Y. Lo, David P. Chan, Richard C. Y. Hui, Phys. Essays 15 (1), 77-86 (March 2002).

2225. Einstein’s Miraculous Year, edited and introduced by J. Stachel (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1988).

2326. C. Y. Lo, Completing Einstein’s Proof of E = mc2, Progress in Phys., Vol. 4, 14-18 (2006).

2427. K. S. Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps (Norton, New York, 1994), p. 105.

2528. C. M. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge Univ., Cambridge. 1981).

2629. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 21 (1), 44-51 (March 2008).

2 12
 1 13 APRI-TH-PHY-002-10

130. H. Reissner, Ann. Phy. (Germany) 50, 106-120 (1916).

231. G. Nordstrom, Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wet. 20, p. 1238 (1918).

332. C. Y. Lo, Chinese J. of Phys., Vol. 41, No. 4, 332-342 (2003).

433. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 15 (3), 303-321 (2002).

534. C. Y. Lo, Chin. Phys. (Beijing), 16 (3), 635-639 (March 2007).

635. L. Herrera, N. O. Santos and J. E. F. Skea, Gen. Rel. Grav. Vol. 35, No. 11, 2057 (2003).

736. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: (John Wiley Inc., New York, 1972).

837. C. Y. Lo, G. R. Goldstein, & A. Napier, Hadronic Journal 12 (2) 75-89 (1989).

938. W. Q. Liu (http://www.cqfyl.com) got certified results of lighter capacitors after charged in a Chinese Laboratory of the

10 Academy of Science. Also, his weighting of magnets is consistent with the claim of J. A. Wheeler [27, p. 263] (private

11 communication, August 2007).

1239. D. R. Buehler, “Exploratory Research on the Phenomenon of the Movement of High Voltage Capacitors”, J. of Space
13 Mixing, 2, 1-22, 2004. living@doylebuehler.com.

1440. T. Musha and T. Kanamoto, “Electro-gravitational effect for dielectric material by high potential electric field”, Proc. of
15 the 38th Space Sci. and Tech. Conf., JSASS, 1994, pp. 31-32(J).

1641. T. Musha, Proc. of the 37th Conf. on Aerospace Propulsion, JSASS, 1997, pp. 342-349(J).

1742. http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

1843. C. Y. Lo, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 27D (2), 149-170 (2008); at the request of ‘t Hooft, his article on

19 gravitational waves is attached as the Appendix B. The Appendix A is on Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence .

2044. G. ‘t Hooft, “Strange Misconceptions of General Relativity”, (there are other problems beyond those addressed in [43])
21 http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gravitating_misconceptions.html

2245. J. L. Synge, Relativity; The General Theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971).

2346. W. Pauli, Theory of Relativity (Pergamon, London, 1958).

2447. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 22 (4), 543- 546 (December, 2009).

2548. J. Norton, “What was Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence?” in Einstein’s Studies Vol. 1: Einstein and the History of
26 General Relativity, Eds. D. Howard & J. Stachel (Birkhäuser, 1989).

2749. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 18 (4), 547- 560 (December, 2005)

2 13
1 14 APRI-TH-PHY-002-10

150. C. Y. Lo, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 26D (2), 73-88 (2007).

251. H. C. Ohanian & R. Ruffini, Gravitation and Spacetime (Norton, New York, 1994).

352. H. C. Ohanian, “Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius (Norton, New York, 2008).

453. N. Hu, D. -H. Zhang, & H. G. Ding, Acta Phys. Sinica, 30 (8), 1003-1010 (1981).

554. D. Christodoulou and S. Klainerman, The Global Nonlinear Stability of the Minkowski Space (Princeton Mathematical
6 Series No. 41) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1993).

755. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 13 (1), 109-120 (March 2000).

856. Volker Perlick (republished with an editorial note), Gen. Relat. Grav. 32(4), 761-763 (2000).

957. A. Einstein, L. Infeld, & B. Hoffman, Ann. Math. 39, 65 (1938)..

2 14