Gravitation
Mass may be defined in two ways:
1o By the quotient of the force by the acceleration1; this is the true definition of the mass, which measures the inertia2 of the body.
2o By the attraction the body exercises upon an exterior3 body, in virtue4 of Newton’s law. We should therefore distinguish the mass coefficient of inertia and the mass coefficient of attraction. According to Newton’s law, there is rigorous proportionality between these two coefficients. But that is demonstrated only for velocities5 to which the general principles of dynamics6 are applicable. Now, we have seen that the mass coefficient of inertia increases with the velocity7; should we conclude that the mass coefficient of attraction increases likewise with the velocity and remains8 proportional to the coefficient of inertia, or, on the contrary, that this coefficient of attraction remains constant? This is a question we have no means of deciding.
On the other hand, if the coefficient of attraction depends upon the velocity, since the velocities of two bodies which mutually attract are not in general the same, how will this coefficient depend upon these two velocities?
Upon this subject we can only make hypotheses, but we are naturally led to investigate which of these hypotheses would be compatible with the principle of relativity. There are a great number of them; the only one of which I shall here speak is that of Lorentz, which I shall briefly10 expound11.
Consider first electrons at rest. Two electrons of the same sign repel12 each other and two electrons of contrary sign attract each other; in the ordinary theory, their mutual9 actions are proportional to their electric charges; if therefore we have four electrons, two positive A and A′, and two negative B and B′, the charges of these four being the same in absolute value, the repulsion of A for A′ will be, at the same distance, equal to the repulsion of B for B′ and equal also to the attraction of A for B′, or of A′ for B. If therefore A and B are very near each other, as also A′ and B′, and we examine the action of the system A + B upon the system A′ + B′, we shall have two repulsions and two attractions which will exactly compensate13 each other and the resulting action will be null.
Now, material molecules15 should just be regarded as species of solar systems where circulate the electrons, some positive, some negative, and in such a way that the algebraic sum of all the charges is null. A material molecule14 is therefore wholly analogous16 to the system A + B of which we have spoken, so that the total electric action of two molecules one upon the other should be null.
But experiment shows us that these molecules attract each other in consequence of Newtonian gravitation; and then we may make two hypotheses: we may suppose gravitation has no relation to the electrostatic attractions, that it is due to a cause entirely17 different, and is simply something additional; or else we may suppose the attractions are not proportional to the charges and that the attraction exercised by a charge +1 upon a charge ?1 is greater than the mutual repulsion of two +1 charges, or two ?1 charges.
In other words, the electric field produced by the positive electrons and that which the negative electrons produce might be superposed and yet remain distinct. The positive electrons would be more sensitive to the field produced by the negative electrons than to the field produced by the positive electrons; the contrary would be the case for the negative electrons. It is clear that this hypothesis somewhat complicates18 electrostatics, but that it brings back into it gravitation. This was, in sum, Franklin’s hypothesis.
What happens now if the electrons are in motion? The positive electrons will cause a perturbation in the ether and produce there an electric and magnetic field. The same will be the case for the negative electrons. The electrons, positive as well as negative, undergo then a mechanical impulsion by the action of these different fields. In the ordinary theory, the electromagnetic field, due to the motion of the positive electrons, exercises, upon two electrons of contrary sign and of the same absolute charge, equal actions with contrary sign. We may then without inconvenience not distinguish the field due to the motion of the positive electrons and the field due to the motion of the negative electrons and consider only the algebraic sum of these two fields, that is to say the resulting field.
In the new theory, on the contrary, the action upon the positive electrons of the electromagnetic field due to the positive electrons follows the ordinary laws; it is the same with the action upon the negative electrons of the field due to the negative electrons. Let us now consider the action of the field due to the positive electrons upon the negative electrons (or inversely19); it will still follow the same laws, but with a different coefficient. Each electron is more sensitive to the field created by the electrons of contrary name than to the field created by the electrons of the same name.
Such is the hypothesis of Lorentz, which reduces to Franklin’s hypothesis for slight velocities; it will therefore explain, for these small velocities, Newton’s law. Moreover, as gravitation goes back to forces of electrodynamic origin, the general theory of Lorentz will apply, and consequently the principle of relativity will not be violated.
We see that Newton’s law is no longer applicable to great velocities and that it must be modified, for bodies in motion, precisely20 in the same way as the laws of electrostatics for electricity in motion.
We know that electromagnetic perturbations spread with the velocity of light. We may therefore be tempted21 to reject the preceding theory upon remembering that gravitation spreads, according to the calculations of Laplace, at least ten million times more quickly than light, and that consequently it can not be of electromagnetic origin. The result of Laplace is well known, but one is generally ignorant of its signification. Laplace supposed that, if the propagation of gravitation is not instantaneous, its velocity of spread combines with that of the body attracted, as happens for light in the phenomenon of astronomic22 aberration23, so that the effective force is not directed along the straight joining the two bodies, but makes with this straight a small angle. This is a very special hypothesis, not well justified24, and, in any case, entirely different from that of Lorentz. Laplace’s result proves nothing against the theory of Lorentz.
2
Comparison with Astronomic Observations
Can the preceding theories be reconciled with astronomic observations?
First of all, if we adopt them, the energy of the planetary motions will be constantly dissipated by the effect of the wave of acceleration. From this would result that the mean motions of the stars would constantly accelerate, as if these stars were moving in a resistant25 medium. But this effect is exceedingly slight, far too much so to be discerned by the most precise observations. The acceleration of the heavenly bodies is relatively26 slight, so that the effects of the wave of acceleration are negligible and the motion may be regarded as quasi stationary27. It is true that the effects of the wave of acceleration constantly accumulate, but this accumulation itself is so slow that thousands of years of observation would be necessary for it to become sensible. Let us therefore make the calculation considering the motion as quasi-stationary, and that under the three following hypotheses:
A. Admit the hypothesis of Abraham (electrons indeformable) and retain Newton’s law in its usual form;
B. Admit the hypothesis of Lorentz about the deformation28 of electrons and retain the usual Newton’s law;
C. Admit the hypothesis of Lorentz about electrons and modify Newton’s law as we have done in the preceding paragraph, so as to render it compatible with the principle of relativity.
It is in the motion of Mercury that the effect will be most sensible, since this planet has the greatest velocity. Tisserand formerly29 made an analogous calculation, admitting Weber’s law; I recall that Weber had sought to explain at the same time the electrostatic and electrodynamic phenomena30 in supposing that electrons (whose name was not yet invented) exercise, one upon another, attractions and repulsions directed along the straight joining them, and depending not only upon their distances, but upon the first and second derivatives31 of these distances, consequently upon their velocities and their accelerations32. This law of Weber, different enough from those which to-day tend to prevail, none the less presents a certain analogy with them.
Tisserand found that, if the Newtonian attraction conformed to Weber’s law there resulted, for Mercury’s perihelion, secular33 variation of 14′′, of the same sense as that which has been observed and could not be explained, but smaller, since this is 38′′.
Let us recur34 to the hypotheses A, B and C, and study first the motion of a planet attracted by a fixed35 center. The hypotheses B and C are no longer distinguished36, since, if the attracting point is fixed, the field it produces is a purely37 electrostatic field, where the attraction varies inversely as the square of the distance, in conformity38 with Coulomb’s electrostatic law, identical with that of Newton.
The vis viva equation holds good, taking for vis viva the new definition; in the same way, the equation of areas is replaced by another equivalent to it; the moment of the quantity of motion is a constant, but the quantity of motion must be defined as in the new dynamics.
The only sensible effect will be a secular motion of the perihelion. With the theory of Lorentz, we shall find, for this motion, half of what Weber’s law would give; with the theory of Abraham, two fifths.
If now we suppose two moving bodies gravitating around their common center of gravity, the effects are very little different, though the calculations may be a little more complicated. The motion of Mercury’s perihelion would therefore be 7′′ in the theory of Lorentz and 5′′.6 in that of Abraham.
The effect moreover is proportional to n3a2, where n is the star’s mean motion and a the radius39 of its orbit. For the planets, in virtue of Kepler’s law, the effect varies then inversely as √a5; it is therefore insensible, save for Mercury.
It is likewise insensible for the moon though n is great, because a is extremely small; in sum, it is five times less for Venus, and six hundred times less for the moon than for Mercury. We may add that as to Venus and the earth, the motion of the perihelion (for the same angular velocity of this motion) would be much more difficult to discern by astronomic observations, because the excentricity of their orbits is much less than for Mercury.
To sum up, the only sensible effect upon astronomic observations would be a motion of Mercury’s perihelion, in the same sense as that which has been observed without being explained, but notably40 slighter.
That can not be regarded as an argument in favor of the new dynamics, since it will always be necessary to seek another explanation for the greater part of Mercury’s anomaly; but still less can it be regarded as an argument against it.
3
The Theory of Lesage
It is interesting to compare these considerations with a theory long since proposed to explain universal gravitation.
Suppose that, in the interplanetary spaces, circulate in every direction, with high velocities, very tenuous41 corpuscles. A body isolated42 in space will not be affected43, apparently44, by the impacts of these corpuscles, since these impacts are equally distributed in all directions. But if two bodies A and B are present, the body B will play the r?le of screen and will intercept45 part of the corpuscles which, without it, would have struck A. Then, the impacts received by A in the direction opposite that from B will no longer have a counterpart, or will now be only partially46 compensated47, and this will push A toward B.
Such is the theory of Lesage; and we shall discuss it, taking first the view-point of ordinary mechanics.
First, how should the impacts postulated49 by this theory take place; is it according to the laws of perfectly50 elastic51 bodies, or according to those of bodies devoid52 of elasticity53, or according to an intermediate law? The corpuscles of Lesage can not act as perfectly elastic bodies; otherwise the effect would be null, since the corpuscles intercepted54 by the body B would be replaced by others which would have rebounded55 from B, and calculation proves that the compensation would be perfect. It is necessary then that the impact make the corpuscles lose energy, and this energy should appear under the form of heat. But how much heat would thus be produced? Note that attraction passes through bodies; it is necessary therefore to represent to ourselves the earth, for example, not as a solid screen, but as formed of a very great number of very small spherical56 molecules, which play individually the r?le of little screens, but between which the corpuscles of Lesage may freely circulate. So, not only the earth is not a solid screen, but it is not even a cullender, since the voids occupy much more space than the plenums. To realize this, recall that Laplace has demonstrated that attraction, in traversing the earth, is weakened at most by one ten-millionth part, and his proof is perfectly satisfactory: in fact, if attraction were absorbed by the body it traverses, it would no longer be proportional to the masses; it would be relatively weaker for great bodies than for small, since it would have a greater thickness to traverse. The attraction of the sun for the earth would therefore be relatively weaker than that of the sun for the moon, and thence would result, in the motion of the moon, a very sensible inequality. We should therefore conclude, if we adopt the theory of Lesage, that the total surface of the spherical molecules which compose the earth is at most the ten-millionth part of the total surface of the earth.
Darwin has proved that the theory of Lesage only leads exactly to Newton’s law when we postulate48 particles entirely devoid of elasticity. The attraction exerted by the earth on a mass 1 at a distance 1 will then be proportional, at the same time, to the total surface S of the spherical molecules composing it, to the velocity v of the corpuscles, to the square root of the density57 ρ of the medium formed by the corpuscles. The heat produced will be proportional to S, to the density ρ, and to the cube of the velocity v.
But it is necessary to take account of the resistance experienced by a body moving in such a medium; it can not move, in fact, without going against certain impacts, in fleeing, on the contrary, before those coming in the opposite direction, so that the compensation realized in the state of rest can no longer subsist58. The calculated resistance is proportional to S, to ρ and to v; now, we know that the heavenly bodies move as if they experienced no resistance, and the precision of observations permits us to fix a limit to the resistance of the medium.
This resistance varying as Sρv, while the attraction varies as S√(ρv), we see that the ratio of the resistance to the square of the attraction is inversely as the product Sv.
We have therefore a lower limit of the product Sv. We have already an upper limit of S (by the absorption of attraction by the body it traverses); we have therefore a lower limit of the velocity v, which must be at least 24·1017 times that of light.
From this we are able to deduce ρ and the quantity of heat produced; this quantity would suffice to raise the temperature 1026 degrees a second; the earth would receive in a given time 1020 times more heat than the sun emits in the same time; I am not speaking of the heat the sun sends to the earth, but of that it radiates in all directions.
It is evident the earth could not long stand such a régime.
We should not be led to results less fantastic if, contrary to Darwin’s views, we endowed the corpuscles of Lesage with an elasticity imperfect without being null. In truth, the vis viva of these corpuscles would not be entirely converted into heat, but the attraction produced would likewise be less, so that it would be only the part of this vis viva converted into heat, which would contribute to produce the attraction and that would come to the same thing; a judicious59 employment of the theorem of the viriel would enable us to account for this.
The theory of Lesage may be transformed; suppress the corpuscles and imagine the ether overrun in all senses by luminous60 waves coming from all points of space. When a material object receives a luminous wave, this wave exercises upon it a mechanical action due to the Maxwell-Bartholi pressure, just as if it had received the impact of a material projectile61. The waves in question could therefore play the r?le of the corpuscles of Lesage. This is what is supposed, for example, by M. Tommasina.
The difficulties are not removed for all that; the velocity of propagation can be only that of light, and we are thus led, for the resistance of the medium, to an inadmissible figure. Besides, if the light is all reflected, the effect is null, just as in the hypothesis of the perfectly elastic corpuscles.
That there should be attraction, it is necessary that the light be partially absorbed; but then there is production of heat. The calculations do not differ essentially62 from those made in the ordinary theory of Lesage, and the result retains the same fantastic character.
On the other hand, attraction is not absorbed by the body it traverses, or hardly at all; it is not so with the light we know. Light which would produce the Newtonian attraction would have to be considerably63 different from ordinary light and be, for example, of very short wave length. This does not count that, if our eyes were sensible of this light, the whole heavens should appear to us much more brilliant than the sun, so that the sun would seem to us to stand out in black, otherwise the sun would repel us instead of attracting us. For all these reasons, light which would permit of the explanation of attraction would be much more like R?ntgen rays than like ordinary light.
And besides, the X-rays would not suffice; however penetrating64 they may seem to us, they could not pass through the whole earth; it would be necessary therefore to imagine X′-rays much more penetrating than the ordinary X-rays. Moreover a part of the energy of these X′-rays would have to be destroyed, otherwise there would be no attraction. If you do not wish it transformed into heat, which would lead to an enormous heat production, you must suppose it radiated in every direction under the form of secondary rays, which might be called X′′ and which would have to be much more penetrating still than the X′-rays, otherwise they would in their turn derange65 the phenomena of attraction.
Such are the complicated hypotheses to which we are led when we try to give life to the theory of Lesage.
But all we have said presupposes the ordinary laws of mechanics.
Will things go better if we admit the new dynamics? And first, can we conserve66 the principles of relativity? Let us give at first to the theory of Lesage its primitive67 form, and suppose space ploughed by material corpuscles; if these corpuscles were perfectly elastic, the laws of their impact would conform to this principle of relativity, but we know that then their effect would be null. We must therefore suppose these corpuscles are not elastic, and then it is difficult to imagine a law of impact compatible with the principle of relativity. Besides, we should still find a production of considerable heat, and yet a very sensible resistance of the medium.
If we suppress these corpuscles and revert68 to the hypothesis of the Maxwell-Bartholi pressure, the difficulties will not be less. This is what Lorentz himself has attempted in his Memoir69 to the Amsterdam Academy of Sciences of April 25, 1900.
Consider a system of electrons immersed in an ether permeated70 in every sense by luminous waves; one of these electrons, struck by one of these waves, begins to vibrate; its vibration71 will be synchronous72 with that of light; but it may have a difference of phase, if the electron absorbs a part of the incident energy. In fact, if it absorbs energy, this is because the vibration of the ether impels73 the electron; the electron must therefore be slower than the ether. An electron in motion is analogous to a convection current; therefore every magnetic field, in particular that due to the luminous perturbation itself, must exert a mechanical action upon this electron. This action is very slight; moreover, it changes sign in the current of the period; nevertheless, the mean action is not null if there is a difference of phase between the vibrations74 of the electron and those of the ether. The mean action is proportional to this difference, consequently to the energy absorbed by the electron. I can not here enter into the detail of the calculations; suffice it to say only that the final result is an attraction of any two electrons, varying inversely as the square of the distance and proportional to the energy absorbed by the two electrons.
Therefore there can not be attraction without absorption of light and, consequently, without production of heat, and this it is which determined75 Lorentz to abandon this theory, which, at bottom, does not differ from that of Lesage-Maxwell-Bartholi. He would have been much more dismayed still if he had pushed the calculation to the end. He would have found that the temperature of the earth would have to increase 1012 degrees a second.
4
Conclusions
I have striven to give in few words an idea as complete as possible of these new doctrines76; I have sought to explain how they took birth; otherwise the reader would have had ground to be frightened by their boldness. The new theories are not yet demonstrated; far from it; only they rest upon an aggregate77 of probabilities sufficiently78 weighty for us not to have the right to treat them with disregard.
New experiments will doubtless teach us what we should finally think of them. The knotty79 point of the question lies in Kaufmann’s experiment and those that may be undertaken to verify it.
In conclusion, permit me a word of warning. Suppose that, after some years, these theories undergo new tests and triumph; then our secondary education will incur80 a great danger; certain professors will doubtless wish to make a place for the new theories.
Novelties are so attractive, and it is so hard not to seem highly advanced! At least there will be the wish to open vistas81 to the pupils and, before teaching them the ordinary mechanics, to let them know it has had its day and was at best good enough for that old dolt82 Laplace. And then they will not form the habit of the ordinary mechanics.
Is it well to let them know this is only approximative? Yes; but later, when it has penetrated83 to their very marrow84, when they shall have taken the bent85 of thinking only through it, when there shall no longer be risk of their unlearning it, then one may, without inconvenience, show them its limits.
It is with the ordinary mechanics that they must live; this alone will they ever have to apply. Whatever be the progress of automobilism, our vehicles will never attain86 speeds where it is not true. The other is only a luxury, and we should think of the luxury only when there is no longer any risk of harming the necessary.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8c711/8c7110c6592b18f6ee88b0c1624d2cff50b7bbbb" alt=""
点击
收听单词发音
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d9800/d9800aa57a2817132ac898b1fdffe18ba341b3ed" alt="收听单词发音"
1
acceleration
![]() |
|
n.加速,加速度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2
inertia
![]() |
|
adj.惰性,惯性,懒惰,迟钝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3
exterior
![]() |
|
adj.外部的,外在的;表面的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4
virtue
![]() |
|
n.德行,美德;贞操;优点;功效,效力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5
velocities
![]() |
|
n.速度( velocity的名词复数 );高速,快速 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6
dynamics
![]() |
|
n.力学,动力学,动力,原动力;动态 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7
velocity
![]() |
|
n.速度,速率 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8
remains
![]() |
|
n.剩余物,残留物;遗体,遗迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9
mutual
![]() |
|
adj.相互的,彼此的;共同的,共有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10
briefly
![]() |
|
adv.简单地,简短地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11
expound
![]() |
|
v.详述;解释;阐述 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12
repel
![]() |
|
v.击退,抵制,拒绝,排斥 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13
compensate
![]() |
|
vt.补偿,赔偿;酬报 vi.弥补;补偿;抵消 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14
molecule
![]() |
|
n.分子,克分子 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15
molecules
![]() |
|
分子( molecule的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16
analogous
![]() |
|
adj.相似的;类似的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17
entirely
![]() |
|
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18
complicates
![]() |
|
使复杂化( complicate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19
inversely
![]() |
|
adj.相反的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20
precisely
![]() |
|
adv.恰好,正好,精确地,细致地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21
tempted
![]() |
|
v.怂恿(某人)干不正当的事;冒…的险(tempt的过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22
astronomic
![]() |
|
天文学的,星学的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23
aberration
![]() |
|
n.离开正路,脱离常规,色差 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24
justified
![]() |
|
a.正当的,有理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25
resistant
![]() |
|
adj.(to)抵抗的,有抵抗力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26
relatively
![]() |
|
adv.比较...地,相对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27
stationary
![]() |
|
adj.固定的,静止不动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28
deformation
![]() |
|
n.形状损坏;变形;畸形 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29
formerly
![]() |
|
adv.从前,以前 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30
phenomena
![]() |
|
n.现象 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31
derivatives
![]() |
|
n.衍生性金融商品;派生物,引出物( derivative的名词复数 );导数 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32
accelerations
![]() |
|
n.加速( acceleration的名词复数 );加速度;(车辆)加速能力;(优秀学生的)跳级 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33
secular
![]() |
|
n.牧师,凡人;adj.世俗的,现世的,不朽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34
recur
![]() |
|
vi.复发,重现,再发生 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35
fixed
![]() |
|
adj.固定的,不变的,准备好的;(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36
distinguished
![]() |
|
adj.卓越的,杰出的,著名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37
purely
![]() |
|
adv.纯粹地,完全地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38
conformity
![]() |
|
n.一致,遵从,顺从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39
radius
![]() |
|
n.半径,半径范围;有效航程,范围,界限 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40
notably
![]() |
|
adv.值得注意地,显著地,尤其地,特别地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41
tenuous
![]() |
|
adj.细薄的,稀薄的,空洞的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42
isolated
![]() |
|
adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43
affected
![]() |
|
adj.不自然的,假装的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44
apparently
![]() |
|
adv.显然地;表面上,似乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45
intercept
![]() |
|
vt.拦截,截住,截击 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46
partially
![]() |
|
adv.部分地,从某些方面讲 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47
compensated
![]() |
|
补偿,报酬( compensate的过去式和过去分词 ); 给(某人)赔偿(或赔款) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48
postulate
![]() |
|
n.假定,基本条件;vt.要求,假定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49
postulated
![]() |
|
v.假定,假设( postulate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50
perfectly
![]() |
|
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51
elastic
![]() |
|
n.橡皮圈,松紧带;adj.有弹性的;灵活的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52
devoid
![]() |
|
adj.全无的,缺乏的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53
elasticity
![]() |
|
n.弹性,伸缩力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54
intercepted
![]() |
|
拦截( intercept的过去式和过去分词 ); 截住; 截击; 拦阻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55
rebounded
![]() |
|
弹回( rebound的过去式和过去分词 ); 反弹; 产生反作用; 未能奏效 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56
spherical
![]() |
|
adj.球形的;球面的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57
density
![]() |
|
n.密集,密度,浓度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58
subsist
![]() |
|
vi.生存,存在,供养 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59
judicious
![]() |
|
adj.明智的,明断的,能作出明智决定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60
luminous
![]() |
|
adj.发光的,发亮的;光明的;明白易懂的;有启发的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61
projectile
![]() |
|
n.投射物,发射体;adj.向前开进的;推进的;抛掷的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62
essentially
![]() |
|
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63
considerably
![]() |
|
adv.极大地;相当大地;在很大程度上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64
penetrating
![]() |
|
adj.(声音)响亮的,尖锐的adj.(气味)刺激的adj.(思想)敏锐的,有洞察力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65
derange
![]() |
|
v.使精神错乱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66
conserve
![]() |
|
vt.保存,保护,节约,节省,守恒,不灭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67
primitive
![]() |
|
adj.原始的;简单的;n.原(始)人,原始事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68
revert
![]() |
|
v.恢复,复归,回到 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69
memoir
![]() |
|
n.[pl.]回忆录,自传;记事录 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70
permeated
![]() |
|
弥漫( permeate的过去式和过去分词 ); 遍布; 渗入; 渗透 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71
vibration
![]() |
|
n.颤动,振动;摆动 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72
synchronous
![]() |
|
adj.同步的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73
impels
![]() |
|
v.推动、推进或敦促某人做某事( impel的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74
vibrations
![]() |
|
n.摆动( vibration的名词复数 );震动;感受;(偏离平衡位置的)一次性往复振动 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75
determined
![]() |
|
adj.坚定的;有决心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76
doctrines
![]() |
|
n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 );教义;学说;(政府政策的)正式声明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77
aggregate
![]() |
|
adj.总计的,集合的;n.总数;v.合计;集合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78
sufficiently
![]() |
|
adv.足够地,充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79
knotty
![]() |
|
adj.有结的,多节的,多瘤的,棘手的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80
incur
![]() |
|
vt.招致,蒙受,遭遇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81
vistas
![]() |
|
长条形景色( vista的名词复数 ); 回顾; 展望; (未来可能发生的)一系列情景 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
82
dolt
![]() |
|
n.傻瓜 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83
penetrated
![]() |
|
adj. 击穿的,鞭辟入里的 动词penetrate的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84
marrow
![]() |
|
n.骨髓;精华;活力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85
bent
![]() |
|
n.爱好,癖好;adj.弯的;决心的,一心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
86
attain
![]() |
|
vt.达到,获得,完成 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |