Talk:Frame-dragging/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Simple change of phrase "Maxwellian electromagnetism:

In the introduction, I have changed "Maxwellian electromagnetism" to "classical electromagnetism". The former phrase is misleading and unenlightening because 1) nobody uses this phrase and 2) more people than Maxwell contributed to classical electromagnetism. A google search of "Maxwellian electromagnetism" brings 2350 hits, and one of "classical electromagnetism" brings 348,000 hits. Please discuss here if there is any particular reason for using this non-standard language. 129.63.129.196 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of statement

I’m not an expert on the subject matter, but I question the accuracy of a statement provided.

“This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move around the object faster than light moving against the rotation as seen by a distant observer”

Does this not contradict the statement that the speed of light is a “Constant velocity from all inertial reference frames “which can be found in the "Speed of light" article?

-Thanks

In general relativity, the constancy of the speed of light is a purely local phonomenon. So at any position along the path of this light, an observer would see it as passing themselves at c. For distant observers in a gravitational field, the situation gets a bit trickier, with the speed of light being a function of the difference in potential between the observer and the light. (For example, gravitational time dilation makes light appear to move slower even though locally its speed remains c.)

The Frame-dragging of spacetime creates an effect which is a close cousin of the Sagnac effect. For example: Two photons which went around the rotating obsject would meet on exactly the opposite side as viewed by an observer who is moving with the frame-dragging at that position. However, the distant observer is in a spacetime which lacks any appreciable frame-dragging (as the effect diminishes with distance from the object), and so is effectively rotating with respect to the observer further down who is moving with the frame-dragging. That rotational effect is what caused light to go around the star faster in one direction that the other.

I hope this helps. If you have further questions please post them on my talk page. --EMS | Talk 19:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I also question the accuracy of "This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object...", for a different reason. This phrase implies that light can travel in a circle (or, worse, in an ellipse) without outside influences. I think we can all agree that light can only travel in the vacuum of space in a straight line, yes? If we agree, the phrase needs correction. Rotation of a light-emitting object, of course, can produce a Döppler effect, but not because the light itself is traveling in a curved path. David spector (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Light is bent by gravity. This is one of the first empirical results of general relativity. Around a non-rotating black hole the radius of the photon sphere (circular light orbits) is 3M. For equatorial orbits about a rotating black hole the spinward circular orbit has a smaller radius than the anti-spinward orbit. In this case the light would have to be guided as there is no common spinward and anti-spinward orbit. Cloudswrest (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

static mass increase?

I'm pretty sure this was shown by Carl Brans in 1962 to be a coordinate effect, and not fundamental. See [2], pg. 5. I'd change it myself but maybe someone else knows better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.35.208 (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To the moderators. A new edit war?

Be careful because in it.wiki Lauriners has started an edit war on the article on LARES in which she, apart from using a clearly unappropriate and not impartial tone in favor of Ciufolini about LARES tending to undermine the scientific credibility of Iorio, repeatedly removed a couple of verifiable citations to works by Iorio against the fact that LARES would have improved the equivalence principle limits. From a citation used in the Discussion in it.wiki, it turns out that Lauriners is a member of, or she is very close to, the LARES team because she used an internal report of the LARES team which is not publicly available apart from those who are involved in that project. Harmonicum (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Experimental tests of frame-dragging

I think this section should have a summary sentence at the beginning, so we commoners don't have to wade through the minutiae of the text to discover that, I think, tests of frame-dragging are so far inconclusive in the sense that although results are consistent with general relativity, they are also consistent with the hypothesis that frame-dragging effects don't exist. If that's the case, I mean. I'm not sure it is. At this point, I think the only evidence of frame-dragging is that GR predicts it and we have no conclusive evidence that GR is not correct and much evidence from other areas that it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkor (talk • contribs) 00:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarifications?

Could somebody clarify for the general reader these sentences in the article?

1.: "Under the Lense-Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is rotating around the object as viewed by a distant observer."
Am I correct in taking this to refer to a frame of reference which is itself spinning while it also orbits (revolves around) an object? Does the distant observer see the clock as ticking even faster when the clock and its reference frame spin even faster?

2.: "Static mass increase is a third effect noted by Einstein in the same paper.[5] The effect is an increase in inertia of a body when other masses are placed nearby."
Is it an increase in the body's rest mass or its total mass? I kind of guess that it's an increase in the total mass, but, on the other hand, if GR can lead to the constant lightspeed seeming to vary, then maybe likewise with the invariant (rest) mass, I don't know. The Tetrast (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC).

NPOV, Neutral Point Of View

Rock around the Clocks?

To "The Tetrast" ...
The frame of reference where two counter-rotating clocks sign different times, depending from their motion relating to the central rotating body, is a non-rotating frame at-rest with the very distant stars (asymptotic quasi-inertial frame ").

I'm not sure that I understand. Here's the text:

Under the Lense-Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is rotating around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move around the object faster than light moving against the rotation as seen by a distant observer.

Could it be improved by rewriting as follows? (Insertions underlined via ins tags):

Under the Lense-Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks "ticks" or rotates the fastest as it orbits the object is one a frame which is not rotating and which is at rest with respect to the distant stars (or a distant observer) around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the central massive object will move around the object faster than light moving against its rotation as seen by a distant observer.

The Tetrast (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC). Much edited. The Tetrast (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC).

Okay, now I see that that's not quite right either. What is the reference frame in which the clock ticks (rotates?) fastest which beomes asymptotically seeming at-rest the further away the observer-at-rest-with-respect-to-the-distant stars is? If one is, instead, nearby, then is that frame orbiting around the massive object? What is it doing? The Tetrast (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC).

About the Zonal Harmonics ...

To David,
I think that speaking about "Zonal Harmonics" refers to the deformations from sphericity that are axially symmetric, for example a quasi-spherical body "flattened" at the north and south pole, ie, oblate, is described by the zonal harmonic of degree two.
I’m not so familiar with wikipedia, I don’t know how to update/edit a page or a part of a voice. If someone thinks that this post can clarify the meaning of "zonal armonics", it could be put in, perhaps, a marginal (side) note.

Something about me ...

I am a researcher, my main field of work is the GR.
I would not give too more personal info because reading the (sad) discussion on this page, I found that in some cases has even come to personal insults that I would like to avoid.

I am gathering information about Lense-Thirring effect for the project wich I’m working on. 

After consulting various sources, have collecting articles, published works and textbooks of the greatest experts, I decided to look around even on wikipedia, always considered from my self as a very interesting and always full of information in any aspect.

What I need for my work are more detailed information about the old experiments and the results achieved and the experiments planned for the next years, all about the Fame-Dragging and the demonstration of the L-T effect.

Until today Wiki was always able to satisfy all my curiosity.
Instead on the Frame-dragging page, I found a debate/discussion where dialectic and education seem to come out worst.

To the moderators ...

I don’t understand how and why the conflict about the voice frame-dragging, and in particular about the LARES satellite, was born.
From the collected data seems rather obvious that the school of thought about the measurements that can be performed with satellites already in orbit and satellites planned for the next years are a lot, as always in any debate of Physics, usually you face in the fullness of time and in appropriate locations, and not on a free encyclopedia as it is Wikipedia, almost in the discussions about an item.
In particular there is one voice that confutes the calculations made by the rest of the scientific community, someone called Iorio.
Can anyone tell me who he is? His name is repeated 41 times on the Frame-Dragging page, but what more? I wouldn’t want to offend anyone but, while about all the other quoted scientists every one can find a lot of pages of references, about this person is known nothing, or a little bit more, so a doubts raises that he is (or should be) an insider.

As a first approximation, going back in time, everyone can check from published articles, that this person started cooperating with the group of Ciufolini and then, at a certain time, he moved away, walking on a very personal way. We cannot understand the reasons of this "conversion" from published papers, cause I think is due to tightly personal causes.
Since that time, it seems that this person started to write an incredible number of articles to challenge the predictions made by the rest of the scientific community in particular by the promoters of the LARES satellite, instead speaking in favor of Gravity Probe B (the demonstration are the references at this Wikipedia voice, those that are opposed are all signed L. Iorio).
Unfortunately It often happens, very often, so far as to suggest that this person receives a salary for this, otherwise it isn’t clear what job he do for living.

I had an help from an Italian friend to translate the page of the LARES satellite, if it is possible on this item the strife was bloodiest, but settled by the Italian moderators in a remarkable way.

If it's one person who contests the results or predictions of a scientific experiment WIKIPEDIA have to specify that this is only one voice, the rest of the scientific community is in agreement or just waiting for results from the upcoming space missions.

I don’t want anyone to be censored but don’t you think that, in this moment, the page about frame-dragging is a “little bit” biased?

For instance, on this page every one can read the following:

“ Such claims have been shown to be highly unrealistic.”

This sentence is a strictly personal opinion of the person who edited the page and not an impartial description; on the same row are also shown as references [ref 22 e 23] papers where are stated things contradicted by people much more important than this person. Just one reference found on the discussion of the Italian Wikipedia page about the Lares Satellite:

• K. Nordtvedt, LARES and tests on new Long Range Forces in LARES - Phase A Report for the Italian Space Agency, 30/10/1998, pp 34-37.

"[...] I know a to measuring precision of 10-11 or better, using the precision of a new observation satellite LAGEOS's Slightly eccentric orbit (Specifically, ITS Perigee precession rate) can extend Our search for a new interaction of this range by at least four orders of magnitude beyond present knowledge .... [...] ".

This document can be requested to the Italian Space Agency, waiting for a while (unfortunately more than a while) you can get an electronic copy of it.
No One Knows Who is Iorio, Every One Knows Nodtvedt!

Don’t you believe that should be better to explain what the Frame-Dragging phenomena is, maybe presenting any project involved in past or future experiments about it, without any kind of personal uncalled comment, by virtue of the spirit that should animate Wikipedia?

Documentation

By the way, here's what I’ve found, and commented, on the History of proposals of measurement of general relativistic effects and Lense-Thirring effect using Earth's satellite and LAGEOS-type satellites.

• The proposal to use a polar satellite to eliminate the uncertainties due to the Earth even zonal harmonics was first published by H. Yilmaz, "Proposed Test of the Nature of Gravitational Interaction", Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., 4, 65 (1959) and page 172 of H. Yilmaz, "Introduction to the Theory of Relativity and the Principles of Modern Physics", Blaisdell, New York, (1965).

• The proposal to orbit gyroscopes around Earth to measure the Lense-Thirring effect was first published by: G. E. Pugh, "Proposal for a Satellite Test of the Coriolis Prediction of General Relativity", Weapons Systems Evaluation Group Research Memorandum No. 11, The Pentagon, Washington, (1959) and L. I. Schiff, "Motion of a Gyroscope According to Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 46, 871--82 (1960) and L. I. Schiff "Possible New Test of General Relativity Theory", Phys. Rev. Lett., 4, 215--7 (1960).

• The proposal to use to use two drag-free polar satellites to eliminate the uncertainties due to the Earth even zonal harmonics was published by Van Patten and Everitt: "Possible Experiment with Two Counter--Orbiting Drag-Free Satellites to Obtain a New Test of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and Improved Measurements in Geodesy", Phys. Rev. Lett., 36, 629-632 (1976).

• The proposal to measure general relativistic effects (precession of perigee) using the LAGEOS (1976) satellite was first published in 1977: D. P. Rubincam, "General Relativity and Satellite Orbits: the Motion of a Test Particle in the Schwarzschild Metric", Celest. Mech., 15, 21-33 (1977).

• The proposal to measure the Lense-Thirring effect on the LAGEOS satellite was first published in L. Cugusi and E. Proverbio, Relativistic Effects on the Motion of Earth's Artificial Satellites, Astron. Astroph., 69, 321-325 (1978). However, in this paper, the calculation of the Lense-Thirring effect on the LAGEOS satellite was incorrect: 40 milliarcsec/year (instead of the correct figure 31 milliarcsec/year). In this paper there was no mention to the problem of the systematic errors due to the even zonal harmonics in order to measure the Lense-Thirring effect, nor any proposal on how to avoid this type of critical error.

• The correct calculation of the Lense-Thirring effect on the LAGEOS satellite, i.e., 31 milliarcsec/year, was first published 1984-1986 I. Ciufolini, "Theory and Experiments in General Relativity and other Metric Theories" Ph. Dissertation, Univ. of Texas, Austin, 1984 (PUB: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1984) and I. Ciufolini, "Measurement of the Lense-Thirring drag on high-altitude laser-ranged artificial satellites", Physical Review Letters, 56, 278-281 1986).

• The problem of the even zonal harmonics errors on the LAGEOS satellite and the proposal to use the nodes of two laser ranged satellites of LAGEOS type to measure the Lense-Thirring effect and thus avoid this type of error was first published in: I. Ciufolini, "Theory and Experiments in General Relativity and other Metric Theories" Ph. Dissertation, Univ. of Texas, Austin, 1984 (PUB: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1984) and I. Ciufolini, "Measurement of the Lense-Thirring drag on high-altitude laser-ranged artificial satellites", Physical Review Letters, 56, 278-281 (1986) and later studied in: I. Ciufolini, "A comprehensive introduction to the Lageos gravitomagnetic experiment: from the importance of the gravitomagnetic field in physics to preliminary error analysis and error budget", Int. Journ. of Phys. A, 4, 3083-3145 (1989) and Tapley, B., Ciufolini, I., Ries, J.C., Eanes, R.J., and Watkins, M.M., NASA-ASI Study on LAGEOS III, CSR-UT publication n. CSR-89-3, Austin, Texas (1989).

• The use of the combination of the nodes only of a number of laser ranged satellites to avoid the error due to the even zonal harmonics was first published in I. Ciufolini, "A comprehensive introduction to the Lageos gravitomagnetic experiment: from the importance of the gravitomagnetic field in physics to preliminary error analysis and error budget", Int. Journ. of Phys. A, 4, 3083-3145 (1989), where on page 3102 is written: "... A solution would be to orbit several high-altitude, laser-ranged satellites, similar to LAGEOS, to measure J2, J4, J6, [that is the even zonal harmonics, etc, and one satellite to measure Omega_Lense-Thirring [that is the Lense-Thirring effect] ....", see also page 336 of I. Ciufolini and J.A. Wheeler "Gravitation and Inertia", Princeton University Press (1995).

• The use of the nodes of LAGEOS and LAGEOS 2}, together with the explicit expression of the LAGEOS satellites nodal equations, was first published in I. Ciufolini, "On A New Method to Measure the Gravitomagnetic Field Using Two Orbiting Satellites", Il Nuovo Cimento A, 109, 1709-1720 (1996); the explicit expression of this combination, together with the perigee of LAGEOS 2, was also published in this 1996 paper, this expression without the perigee was then presented by I. Ciufolini during the 2002 I-SIGRAV school and published in its proceedings I. Ciufolini, "Frame-Dragging and Its Measurement" I SIGRAV School on General Relativity, Villa Mondragone Monte Porzio Catone, Roma, Italy September, 2002; Institute of Physics Publishing, 27-***, 2004.

• A detailed study of the determination of the Lense-Thirring effect using laser-ranged satellites was published by: Peterson, G. E., "Estimation of the Lense-Thirring Precession Using Laser-Ranged Satellites" Ph. Dissertation, Univ. of Texas, Austin, 1997. The proposal to use the gravitational models derived using the spacecraft GRACE in order to measure the Lense-Thirring effect with accuracy of a few percent was presented by E. Pavlis during the SIGRAV 2000 conference: Pavlis, E.C., Geodetic Contributions to Gravitational Experiments in Space, in Recent Developments in General Relativity, Genoa 2000, R. Cianci, et al., eds., Springer-Verlag, Milan, p 217, and published in its proceedings, and was published by Ries et al. in the proceedings of the 1998 William Fairbank conference and of the 2003 13th Int. Laser Ranging Workshop: Ries, J. C., Eanes R. J., and Tapley, B. D., 2003, Lense-Thirring Precession Determination from Laser Ranging to Artificial Satellites, in: Proc. III William Fairbank Meeting, World Scientific, Singapore, page 201 and Ries, J. C., Eanes, R. J., Tapley, B. D., and Peterson, G. E., in Toward Millimeter Accuracy Proc. 13th Int. Laser Ranging Workshop, Noomen, R., Klosko, S., Noll, C. and Pearlman, M. eds., (NASA CP 2003–212248, NASA Goddard, Greenbelt, MD, 2003), where Ries et al. wrote that, in the measurement of the Lense-Thirring effect using, the GRACE gravity models and the LAGEOS and LAGEOS 2 satellites: "a more current error assessment is probably at the few percent level"
  

… putting forward a new proposal

I don’t want to censor anyone.
Everyone have to be free to express his own opinion, but this must be an encyclopedic item, all personal opinions should be expressed, at most, in the relative discussion and not on the page of the item itself.
The encyclopedic item should be neutral, descriptive, if you are talking about a scientific experiment you must describe how it's done and what it is proposed to discover, or measure.
What reason to criticizes something or someone (even an experiment or a space mission) before getting any kind of result?

My proposal is to make the following changes:

Experimental tests of frame-dragging

In 1976 Van Patten and Everitt proposed to implement a dedicated mission aimed to measure the Lense-Thirring node precession of a pair of counter-orbiting spacecraft to be placed in terrestrial polar orbits and endowed with drag-free apparatus. A somewhat equivalent, cheaper version of such an idea was put forth in 1986 when was proposed the launch of a passive, geodetic satellite in an orbit identical to that of the LAGEOS satellite, launched in 1976, apart from the orbital planes which should have been displaced by 180 deg apart: the so-called butterfly configuration. The measurable quantity was, in this case, the sum of the nodes of LAGEOS and of the new spacecraft, later named LAGEOS III, LARES, WEBER-SAT. Although extensively studied by various groups, such an idea has not yet been implemented. The butterfly configuration would allow, in principle, to measure not only the sum of the nodes but also the difference of the perigees, although such Keplerian orbital elements are more affected by the non-gravitational perturbations like the direct solar radiation pressure: the use of the active, drag-free technology would be required. Other proposed approaches involved the use of a single satellite to be placed in near polar orbit of low altitude, but such a strategy has been shown to be unfeasible. In order to enhance the possibilities of being implemented, it has been recently claimed that LARES/WEBER-SAT would be able to measure the effects induced by the multidimensional braneworld model by Dvali, Gabadaze and Porrati and to improve by two orders of magnitude the present-day level of accuracy of the equivalence principle.. Most part of the General Relativity scientist community seems to agreed with this theory which is contested by one lone voice ].

Limiting the scope to the scenarios involving existing orbiting bodies, the first proposal to use the LAGEOS satellite and the Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) technique to measure the Lense-Thirring effect dates back to 1977-1978. Tests have started to be effectively performed by using the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II satellites in 1996, according to a strategy involving the use of a suitable combination of the nodes of both satellites and the perigee of LAGEOS II. The latest tests with the LAGEOS satellites have been performed in 2004-2006 by discarding the perigee of LAGEOS II and using a linear combination involving only the nodes of both the spacecraft. Although the predictions of general relativity are compatible with the experimental results, the realistic evaluation of the total error raised a debate. Another test of the Lense-Thirring effect in the gravitational field of Mars, performed by suitably interpreting the data of the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft, has been recently reported. There is also debate about this test. Attempts to detect the Lense-Thirring effect induced by the Sun's rotation on the orbits of the inner planets of the Solar System have been reported as well: the predictions of general relativity are compatible with the estimated corrections to the perihelia precessions, although the errors are still large. However, the inclusion of the radiometric data from the Magellan orbiter recently allowed Pitjeva to greatly improve the determination of the unmodelled precession of the perihelion of Venus. It amounts to -0.0004 ± 0.0001 arcseconds/century, while the Lense-Thirring effect for the Venus' periehlion is just -0.0003 arcseconds/century. The system of the Galilean satellites of Jupiter was investigated as well, following the original suggestion by Lense and Thirring.

The Gravity Probe B experiment is currently under way to experimentally measure another gravitomagnetic effect, i.e. the Schiff precession of a gyroscope, to an expected 1% accuracy or better. Unfortunately, it seems that such an ambitious goal will not be achieved: indeed, first preliminary results released in April 2007 point toward a so far obtained accuracy of 256-128%, with the hope of reaching about 13% in December 2007. However, in 2008 the Senior Review Report of the NASA Astrophysics Division Operating Missions stated that it is unlikely that Gravity Probe B team will be able to reduce the errors to the level necessary to produce a convincing test of currently-untested aspects of General Relativity (including Frame-dragging).

A 1% measurement of the Lense-Thirring effect in the gravitational field of the Earth could be obtained by launching at least two entirely new satellites, preferably endowed with active mechanisms of compensation of the non-gravitational forces, in rather eccentric orbits . Recently, the Italian Space Agency (ASI) has announced that the LARES satellite will be launched with a VEGA rocket at the end of 2009-beginning of 2010. The main objective of the proponents of the LARES satellite is to measure the Lense-Thirring effect with an accuracy of about 1% . Once again, a lone critical voice complained about the possibility of reaching this level of accuracy , since the LARES will be launched into a lower orbit than LAGEOS, and this might amplify perturbing effects due to imperfect sphericity of the Earth (zonal harmonics), The same critical voice also disagree , about the level of accuracy achieved by the two LAGEOS satellites, clearly defined about 10%, community by the most important international experts in Space Geodesy and General Relativity . Recently, an indirect test of the gravitomagnetic interaction accurate to 0.1% has been reported by Murphy et al. with the Lunar laser ranging (LLR) technique, but Kopeikin questioned the ability of LLR to be sensitive to gravitomagnetism.

Extended content

In this way, I think, no one will be censored. --Behemot1977 (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent addition, phrases such as "Once again, a lone critical voice complained..." are very POV. It is enough to say that Iorio disputes the proposal and leave it at that. Long lists of references that contradict Iorio do not amount to proving he is a lone voice; unless one of those refs actually contains a survey that states that as a fact it amounts to OR. I also do not think that the addition of a long publication history in any way helps the "Experimental" section which is already such heavy going it is almost unreadable - although there may be a place for this material in the references section. What is badly needed here is not a resolution of a dispute between scientists (Wikipedia is not the place to do that) but the horrible text turned into some clear prose for the benefit of our readers. This contribution took that aim in entirely the wrong direction. SpinningSpark 14:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear spinning Spark

Are you sure that the Behemot contribution was so … on a side, biased?

Actually, at present, the wiki-page on the frame-dragging is becoming the advertising of a single person.

Unfortunately in this page we are not anymore speaking neutrally about research and/or experiments in progress in this regard.

“Long lists of references that contradict Iorio do not amount to proving he is a lone voice”, WHAT? (GEVAL)

Unfair importance

The neutral point of view requires that an item present correctly all significant viewpoints that have been :published from a trusted source, and it must move that way in proportion to the importance of each one. In addition, items that compare different points of view must not devote to the minority the same importance reserved to those better supported, and indeed may not include all absolutely minority points of view.

You should not groped to submit a dispute as if the views of a minority deserving the same attention as that of the majority; the points of view of small minorities should not be presented, if not in the entries for those views.

Wikipedia aims to present competing views with weights proportional to the support enjoyed among experts in that field, or between the parties concerned.

Do you want to read a truly POV sentence? Try the following:

• "Such Claims Have Been shown to be highly unrealistic."

This sentence is documented, in this page, with two articles by somebody, the same lone voice.

Do you want another POV sentence?

• "Unfortunately, It Seems That Such an Ambitious Goal Will Not Be Achieved"

Try to guess who is also supporting this theory? Doesn’t it seem incredible that this is always the same person?

That LARES measurements will not reach the 1% of accuracy is an opinion. That ESA, ASI, NASA and a lot of different worldwide research institutions are financing the mission and the following measurements trying to reach the 1% of accuracy is a fact!

Don’t you think it is simplistic to give a chance to only one person to express his own opinion, judging, and have the support of a strong tool such as Wikipedia?

Doesn’t it seem ridiculous to “prejudge” the outcome of an experiment that is even being prepared?

(even if it has the support of the scientific community, the most important space agencies and many other research institutions, I apologize for repeating…).

Do you want NO MORE words about the “lone voice”!Ok.

Please find other articles of significant representatives of the scientific world, who support Iorio theory itself.

Or, please, change the title of this article, here you are not talking anymore about frame dragging, this page unfortunately of Wikipedia isn’t giving any more info to those are seeking info in an encyclopedia, it only confuses the ideas;

This page should be titled Mr. Iorio, but a page with this name already existed ... and it has been deleted by more attentive moderators. Ask your colleagues the reasons of this decision.

The articles posted by Behemoth should be put among the references, even if it seems to me a nice idea of a paragraph devoted to the History of proposals of measurement of general relativistic effects and Lense-Thirring effect using Earth's satellite and LAGEOS-type satellites .

From the: Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page

How can neutrality be achieved? Talking with other contributors is a great way to find out why there is a :dispute over an article's neutrality. Ideas and POV's can be shared and ultimately the disputed fact or point :can be fixed if it is incorrect or, when dealing with a controversial issue, various legitimate sources can be :cited in the article. Historians commonly cite many sources in books because there are and will always be :disputes over history. Contributors on Wikipedia can do the same thing, thus giving readers a broad :spectrum of POVs and opinions.

I propose to delete the two POV sentences, are both the opinions of one person. --King of pillow (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with most of what you have said. Minority opinions should not be given undue weight. The two sentences you highlight are indeed anything but neutral in tone. I do not think, however, that you should simply delete all dissent and leave nothing behind, the article should still say that there is a challenge, but in a neutral encyclopedic tone. SpinningSpark 23:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Some considerations

If the points of view by Iorio were really so irrelevant in the scientific community, it is difficult to understand why always the same (italian) people (their identity should blatantly be apparent to all working in the field raising-hopefully-huge laughs) in a relentless way continue with all (fair and unfair) means to try to remove, cancel, discredit, undermine his references to published works? How a single, allegedly irrelevent voice could ever undermine the outcome of a so sound space-based mission like LARES? Why such a continuous fight against a researcher whose only fault is publishing papers on a topic? His (italian) enemies continuosly try to raise an alleged consensus about their results, but continuosly mix old and new papers with the blatant goal of making confuse people who are not expert in the field. They distressingly continue to patch together sparse sentences extracted from old papers and/or by authors who have little or nothing to do with the issue of the LAGEOS/LARES tests. They invoke an alleged universal consensus which, actually, is hard to find in the real world because very few people have really worked on that issue: most of the authors embarked by the (italian) enemies of Iorio in their crusade againts him have not published anything in this so restricted and specialized field. Anyway, even if the contrary was true, this would by no means be a valid argument against Iorio because it could well be possible that Iorio is right and the other wrong. This is science, non science-fiction. Moreover, it is really difficult to miss the fact that Iorio has published his papers in several peer-reviewd journals, not always in the same one. So, a rather vast consensus about his theses should actually exist among the experts, because, otherwise, he could not have published so much in so different and specialized journals. Finally, it is misleading and incorrect that this page should be named "Mr Iorio" (incidentally, using "Mr" instead of "Dr" is another blatant attempt by his (italian) enemies to undermine his scientific credibility among those who are not scientist). Recall that all started years ago when the (italian) enemies of Iorio repeatedly censored his and only his references. Hypernovae19 (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Putting numbers

About the marked list by the (italian) guy, it is an unmistakable signature about HIS ITALIAN identity: they are exactly the same things repeated as a religious mantra in several talks, slides, proceedings, (very few) papers... Anyway, it is really difficult to claim as a fundamental result having plunged some figures in a formula to get the correct numerical value of the Lense-Thirring nodal rate! Moreover, the selectivity of the marked list is, again, unmistakable: as usual, ALL the contributions prior the apparition of the paranoic, megalomaniac and dishonest italian GOD-on-the-Earth in 1984 are sistematically censored....Luckily, much more complete and unbiased papers exist in literature. Nobody has ever missed to acknowledge the pertinent contributions by the paranoic, megalomaniac and dishonest Italian God-on-the-Earth, contributions which he stresses and distorts in the desperate attempt to extend their validity universally...And we are speaking about a non-homogeneous algebraic linear system of three equations in three unknowns...! Nobody has ever removed, censored and cancelled his references in wikipedia. Nobody has ever tried to undermine, defamate and diminish their importance and his scientific credibility.Hypernovae19 (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Clear examples of the defamating policy of some people

Please, read carefully this paragraph taken from the above discussion: "Can anyone tell me who he is? His name is repeated 41 times on the Frame-Dragging page, but what more? I wouldn’t want to offend anyone but, while about all the other quoted scientists every one can find a lot of pages of references, about this person is known nothing, or a little bit more, so a doubts raises that he is (or should be) an insider.

As a first approximation, going back in time, everyone can check from published articles, that this person started cooperating with the group of Ciufolini and then, at a certain time, he moved away, walking on a very personal way. We cannot understand the reasons of this "conversion" from published papers, cause I think is due to tightly personal causes. Since that time, it seems that this person started to write an incredible number of articles to challenge the predictions made by the rest of the scientific community in particular by the promoters of the LARES satellite, instead speaking in favor of Gravity Probe B (the demonstration are the references at this Wikipedia voice, those that are opposed are all signed L. Iorio). Unfortunately It often happens, very often, so far as to suggest that this person receives a salary for this, otherwise it isn’t clear what job he do for living."

The author of the aforementioned paragraph is surely joking when he is claiming that he don't know who Iorio is and that about this person is known nothing, contrary to the oher scientists involved! He has simply-and comically-decided to ignore the several papers published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic of the LAGEOS tests by his enemy!! Moreover, the author of the aformentioned paragraph writes about a "conversion" by Iorio from published papers! It is another genuinely comic statement, as if the only published papers were those co-authored with Ciufolini et al.!!! As if after his "conversion" Iorio has ceased to publish on the topic!!! Finally, the author of the aforemntioned paragraph even insinuates that Iorio receives a salary to write papers criticizing some aspects of the results by Ciufolini!! It is really incredible how the nerves of such people are stressed by such a single, irrelevant voice... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernovae19 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Other small examples

Please, consider the following paragraph "For instance, on this page every one can read the following:

“ Such claims have been shown to be highly unrealistic.”

This sentence is a strictly personal opinion of the person who edited the page and not an impartial description; on the same row are also shown as references [ref 22 e 23] papers where are stated things contradicted by people much more important than this person. Just one reference found on the discussion of the Italian Wikipedia page about the Lares Satellite:

   * K. Nordtvedt, LARES and tests on new Long Range Forces in LARES - Phase A Report for the Italian Space Agency, 30/10/1998, pp 34-37.

"[...] I know a to measuring precision of 10-11 or better, using the precision of a new observation satellite LAGEOS's Slightly eccentric orbit (Specifically, ITS Perigee precession rate) can extend Our search for a new interaction of this range by at least four orders of magnitude beyond present knowledge .... [...] ".

This document can be requested to the Italian Space Agency, waiting for a while (unfortunately more than a while) you can get an electronic copy of it. No One Knows Who is Iorio, Every One Knows Nodtvedt!"

Actually, it is difficult to understand why the statements by Iorio, supported by calculation and reasonings and published in peer-reviewed journals, have to be automatically and sistematically be branded as "strictly personal opinions", while those by other researchers, appeared in an unknown internal document, not even a peer-reviewed journal, seemingly supporting the adverse points, have to automatically and sistematically receive a different, positive status! Moreover, we have here a very clear example of the misleading "disinformacjia" technique described before. Indeed, the citation by Nordtvedt refers to 1998!! It does not even refer to the multidimensional DGP brane model discussed by Iorio in his JCAP paper! It is so because such model was proposed two years later, in 2000! Such a quotation comes before the detailed analyses showing that the perigee of the LAGEOS satellites is heavily affected by the non-gravitational forces so that it cannot be used for good Lense-Thirring tests! If not, why does Ciufolini use only the nodes, not the perigee of LAGEOS 2? The perigee is not good for LT, well: thus, should it be used for measuring an even smaller effect?? Again, the perigee of LARES will not even be defined because LARES will fly in a CIRCULAR orbit!! No eccentricity, no perigee!! At the time of the Nordtvedt quotation it was believed that LARES would have a relatively large eccentricity. Note also the continue resort to the principle of authority, as if we were speaking of literature, or art, or policy!! Such people are, in reality, so dramatically insecure that they cannot avoid to desperately cling to the (alleged) authority of other (alleged) experts in the field (who have published nothing or almost nothing on the subject, of course...) because they have none! The final statement is a sweetie: "No One Knows Iorio, Every One Knows Nordtvedt"! It is a whole program... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernovae19 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

On the salary issue

If you carefully check the wiki.it voice for LARES, you will find the same argument of the alleged salary of Iorio, written in polite Italian language...Thes guys are firmly convinced to be very cunning, no doubts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernovae19 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinions and facts

Please, consider the following statement: "That LARES measurements will not reach the 1% of accuracy is an opinion. That ESA, ASI, NASA and a lot of different worldwide research institutions are financing the mission and the following measurements trying to reach the 1% of accuracy is a fact!"

Apart from the fact that it is unclear what such alleged lot of different worldwide research institutions financing LARES are, how it is possible to seriously accept the statement: "the following measurements trying to reach the 1% of accuracy is a fact!"??? What kind of fact?? Instead, the points raised (and published) by Iorio are, of course, mere opinions...! All in all, it should be clear that the things that such guys like are, naturally, "facts", while things that such guys don't like are, instead, mere "opinions". It's simple..Hypernovae19 (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Copy and paste or something like this

I'm not sure if it is a violation of the policies of Wikipedia, but the enemies of Iorio have taken the material of their latest revisions of the voice frame-dragging and of this discussion from the following reference without citing it: "Ciufolini, Ignazio; Paolozzi, Antonio; Pavlis, Erricos C.; Ries, John C.; Koenig, Rolf; Matzner, Richard A.; Sindoni, Giampiero; Neumayer, Hans, Towards a One Percent Measurement of Frame Dragging by Spin with Satellite Laser Ranging to LAGEOS, LAGEOS 2 and LARES and GRACE Gravity Models, Space Science Reviews, Volume 148, Issue 1-4, pp. 71-104, December 2009, DOI:10.1007/s11214-009-9585-7" If you make a research on the Internet, you will find that about the same material, same tone, same style, is present in seevral slides and talks by Ciufolini. Incidentally, it is just the case to note that, apart Ciufolini, almost none of the authors has ever published anything on the topic in peer-reviewed journals: someone has just some conference proceedings...In some cases, nobody has never published anything at all! This is an example of the alleged universal consensus among the "experts"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernovae19 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A Lone Critical Voice

Dear Spinning spark, I agree in principle with you, … and a little bit with Hipernovae, because Behemot seems to be too much on a side, getting cross post by post.
But it is a fact that both the debated sentence are solely documented by Iorio’s articles.
It is very difficult to find somewhere a different supporter of the Iorio’s theory, actually he seems to be alone to disagree with the LAGEOS results and with the next LARES mission expectation/outlook.
Without counting the Mars theory … (on the Italian LARES wiki-page Iorio is called the martian, at least funny).
Another test of the Lense-Thirring effect in the gravitational field of Mars, performed by suitably interpreting the data of the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft, has been recently reported.There is also debate about this test
There is no debate about this,at least it seems that he is the only supporter of this theory!
Here just a little about what you can find published at this regard:

• Kris Krogh, Comment on evidence of the gravitomagnetic field of Mars, Class. Quantum Grav. 24, 5709-5715, 2007

(this is the only one cited on this page, a great critics of Iorio’s theory)

• Kris Krogh, Iorio's "high-precision measurement" of frame-dragging with the Mars Global Surveyor, ArXiv, arXiv:astro-ph/0701653

• Giampiero Sindoni, Claudio Paris, Paolo Ialongo, On the Systematic Errors in the Detection of the Lense-Thirring Effect with a Mars Orbiter, ArXiv, arXiv:gr-qc/0701141.

• G. Felici, The meaning of systematic errors, a comment to "Reply to On the Systematic Errors in the Detection of the Lense-Thirring Effect with a Mars Orbiter" by Lorenzo Iorio, ArXiv, arXiv:gr-qc/0703020

• I. Ciufolini and E. Pavlis, On the Measurement of the Lense-Thirring effect using the nodes of the LAGEOS satellites, New Astronomy, 10, 636-651, 2005.

• I. Ciufolini, Antonio Paolozzi, Erricos C. Pavlis, John C. Ries, Rolf Koenig, Richard A. Matzner, Giampiero Sindoni, Hans Neumayer, Towards a One Percent Measurement of Frame Dragging by Spin with Satellite Laser Ranging to LAGEOS, LAGEOS 2 and LARES and GRACE Gravity Models, Space Science Reviews (Springer 2009) DOI 10.1007/s11214-009-9585-7.

… same articles found on the cited LARES Italian page.

Here you can find something interesting, without repeating every time same authors, confirming, or quoting, calculation for both LAGEOS and LARES:

• J.C. Ries, R.J. Eanes, M.M. Watkins, Confirming the frame-dragging effect with satellite laser ranging, in 16th International Workshop on Laser Ranging, Poznan, Poland, 13-17 October 2008 and J.C. Ries, International Astronomical Union Symposium 261, Relativity in Fundamental Astronomy, Virginia Beach, VA, USA, 27 April - 1 May 2009.

• Neil Ashby, General relativity: Frame-dragging confirmed, Nature, 431, 918-919 (20 October 2004) doi:10.1038/431918a

• Mark Peplow, Spinning Earth twists space, Nature News (20 October 2004) doi:10.1038/news041018-11 News

• R. F. O’Connell, “A Note on Frame Dragging”, Class. Quant. Grav., 22, 3815 (2005).

• R. F. O'Connell, "Gravito-Magnetism in one-body and two-body systems: Theory and Experiment", in, "Atom Optics and Space Physics", Proc. of Course CLXVIII of the International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi", Varenna, Italy, 2007, ed. E. Arimondo, W. Ertmer and W. Schleich.(Societa Italiana di Fisica, 2009)

• F. O'Connell, "Rotation and Spin in Physics", in "General Relativity and John Archibald Wheeler: Frame-Dragging, Gravitational-waves and Gravitational Tests", Springer 2010.

• Sergei Kopeikin,The gravitomagnetic influence on Earth-orbiting spacecrafts and on the lunar orbit, in "Frame-Dragging, Gravitational-waves and Gravitational Tests", Springer 2010, arXiv:0809.3392

• Yi Xie and Sergei Kopeikin, Reference Frames, Gauge Transformations and Gravitomagnetism in the Post-Newtonian Theory of the Lunar Motion, Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 261, Virginia Beach (2009), arXiv:0905.2424

Now, I’m very sorry for you but, if a Long lists of references that contradict Iorio do not amount to proving he is a lone voice, the long list of reference against the above mentioned calculation esclusively signed by the same person and a lot of publication against the calculation of this person amount to proving, aloud, he is a lone voice.
Actually, it is not so difficult to understand why the Iorio’s statements are automatically and logically branded asstrictly personal opinion!

A billion of references signed by a person are minority,
10 references signed by 10 different persons are (surely closer to) majority.

Now I need a big help from you.
please...
To whom has experience with Wikipedia and its rules, help me to find a way to say that:
the article should still say that there is a challenge, only one man on a side the others on the other side, but in a neutral encyclopedic tone.
Sportingly, we should put in this page a section on all the debates about the frame dragging, we should specify all doubts about results from LAGEOS 1 and 2, about the out coming results, or should be better to say, about the foreseen results of the out coming LARES mission, which launch is foreseen for the next year (no results to debate before of it) but, in anyway, it will be for sure no neutral. Because is a personal point of view of somebody.--King of pillow (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The only way it would be possible to say that there is only one objector is if a published source says this, then it can be quoted. In any case, for an encyclodedia article it is not necessary, it only needs to be said that a scientist has published criticisms. Wikipedia readers can draw their own conclusion from that. It is also not necessary for either side to be debating their case in detail, that is not what an encyclopedia article is all about, there are other places where this can be done.

If you really want to help improve this article (and by God the "Experimental tests" section needs improving) consider contributing some of the following;

• Graphics (possibly animated gif files) to illustrate the proposed orbit configurations
• Breaking the turgid text into subsections for each proposal/project
• Writing in a style that is easily understood by the general reader
• Better explanations (with diagrams where necessary) to explain some of the technical terms like "butterfly configuration" and "zonal harmonic".

SpinningSpark 19:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you know G. Galilei?

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -Galileo Galilei Hypernovae19 (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A billion references to unpublished pre-prints or to conference proceedings, not relevant to the argument are different to references published in peer-review journals

Again, we have another confirmation of the usual tactic used by the (italian) enemies of Iorio to confuse those who are not acquainted with the problem and/or with scientific practice in general: using a bunch of mixed out-of-date references not relevant to the argument. For example, apart from the fact that here the test with MGS has not been discussed, note the usual misleading and dishonest tactic: they quote two references by Krogh which, actually, are the same reference. They quote unpublished preprints on the MGS test by people who have never published anything. Of course, they do NOT quote the published paper by Iorio on CEJP in which he replies to the published and unpublished criticisms...Nothing strange, knowing such paranoic and pathetic (italian) person who seems having nothing betetr to do that wasting his time here... Then, they move to the LAGEOS tests quoting old comments published BEFORE Iorio published his criticisms, then add references which, of course, have NOTHING TO DO with the topic, still unpublished references to a book dedictaed to Wheeler which shed further light, if necessary, on the identity of such (italian) guys who have visions of Iorio every nights in their nightmares, references to some sparse conference proceedings. Of course, they do NOT quote the papers quoting the criticisms by Iorio, again nothing strange in view of the people we are dealing with...This (italian) guy, once again, seems to have a real obsession to desperately demonstrate that he and only he belongs to the genuine scientific community, while Iorio is only a pariah....Hypernovae19 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

About Mars and Krogh

Please, note also another blatant example of the distorted mind of the well known (italian) guy. After having introduced the MGS stuff just to confuse the ideas and devert the attention from the LAGEOS/LARES issue, he cites the only published paper criticizing such a test, i.e. that by Krogh. Just to give the idea that there is a massive consensus against the test by Iorio, he DUPLICATES the work by Krogh, which is actually ONE paper, NOT TWO! Then, he adds some unpublished preprints by guys who have never published anything. But, it is unclear why the criticisms by Krogh to Iorio should be regarded as something necessarily sound, well-posed, scientific, etc. while the criticisms by Iorio to Ciufolini are, instead, mere opinions, personal points of view and so on....(Laughs)Hypernovae19 (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

About a certain G. Forst

For another example of the typical inferiority complex, envy and so on by some people writing here, consider the case of G. Forst. Some years ago a certain G. Forst, from Germany, who never published or posting anything either on the arXiv Internet archive or in peer-reviewed journals, posted on the arXiv a pre-print containing criticisms to the GP-B mission tending to undermine its scientific validity. After some times, the arXiv moderators withdrew such paper because they discovered that, in reality, G. Forst does NOT exist, that the paper was sent by an ITALIAN email account, and posted a comment in which they pointed out that that the content of such a paper by Forst was very similar to that of a Nature paper by Ciufolini. The arXiv moderators added a link to such a Nature paper. See here http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3934. Moreover, who was the ONLY person who repeatedly cited Forst in his slides and presentations? Try to guess...Ciufolini! A simple research on the Internet will show that. Look, e.g., at http://cddis.gsfc.nasa.gov/lw16/docs/presentations/sci_4_Ciufolini.pdf Or here: http://www.lares-mission.com/BERN_6_10_08.pdf Rather humorously, Krogh has insinuated that G. Forst, actually, is not Ciufolini, but..Iorio! Here is the link http://scirate.com/who.php?id=0712.3934&what=comments Another example of pure foolishness, since Iorio has never published anything on GP-B, apart from a paper in which he tretaed a different aspect of that experiment, not connected with the main one, and has clearly demonstrated that if he has something critical to write on a topic, he does it publicly and plainly. There are lot of people who disclose Iorio everywhere, even in their nightmares... These are all examples of how these guys intend the scientific enterprise, of how they make science...And now they are here wasting their own time (clearly, they have nothing better to do, otherwise, they would try to publish something) and the time of others with such tricks and pathetic attempts of censoring, removing, defamating those who, instead, work hard.Hypernovae19 (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A lone critical voice? (I)

The literature (of course, I refer to PUBLISHED papers PUBLICLY AVAILABLE TO ALL PEOPLE...) shows that it is NOT true that Iorio is the pariah that his enemies claim. Indeed, we have L. Iorio, Ch. Corda, Gravitomagnetism and gravitational waves, The Open Astronomy Journal, at press, http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.3951 and L. Iorio, Ch. Corda, Gravitomagnetic Effect in Gravitational Waves, NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS: International Conference on Numerical Analysis and Applied Mathematics 2009: Volume 1 and Volume 2. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 1168, pp. 1072-1076 (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.2154 It is just the case to mention that Ch. Corda is NOT exactly like to alleged "experts" cited by the enemies of Iorio having actually published lot of papers in peer-review journals. Please, compare on the Internet the publishing record by Ch. Corda with that of the guys desperatelly invoked by the enemies of Iorio...(here I am simply using the same arguments of the enemies of Iorio)Hypernovae19 (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A lone critical voice? (II)

Look here, about the alleged ‘’lone critical voice″....http://miur.academia.edu/documents/0154/7614/Iorio_NA_topcite_LT045.pdf. As usual, only cold, hard facts and nothing else.Hypernovae19 (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A lone critical voice? (III)

More on the ‘’lone critical voice″ here...L. Iorio, H.I.M. Lichtenegger, M.L. Ruggiero, C. Corda, Phenomenology of the Lense-Thirring effect in the Solar System, INVITED review, to appear in Astrophysics and Space Science, 2010, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10509-010-0489-5. Again, just cold, hard facts.Hypernovae19 (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A lone critical voice? Let's do the math

It is well known (or, at least, it SHOULD be well known..) that scientific journals employ the method of peer-reviewing according to which a submitted manuscript is scrutinized by at least 1 expert of the field. In some cases there are 2 peers reviewing the manuscripts. Now, if Iorio has published a BILLION REFERENCES in DIFFERENT journals (General Relativity and Gravitation, New Astronomy, Planetary ans Space Science, Journal of Geodesy, The Open Astronomy Journal, AIP proceedings, Advances in Space Research, Acta Physica Polonica B, Central European Journal of Physics, Astrophysics and Space Science), this simply means that....at least ONE BILLION PEOPLE AGREED WITH HIM, by assuming that each journal used different referees. Note that it is likely the case since the journals in which Iorio has published are, in general, different from each other. If we assume 2 referees, we have TWO BILLION PEOPLE AGREEING WITH HIM...Hypernovae19 (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Static mass increase

about the Static mass increase, which in this article says "It is also a tiny effect that is difficult to confirm experimentally.", there was a program on TV here in australia which had someone on it who measured the gravity and they said that the measurement changed on a certain day of the week and returned to normal, they concluded that it was because the stadium was full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.135.177 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 18 February 2011

This is not the same effect. The gravity of the stadium has increased because their is more mass in it (ie the people). This indeed is a tiny, but measurable, effect. The static mass effect, on the other hand, for instance, would make it harder to push a broken down vehicle outside the stadium because the inertia of the vehicle has increased. It is this effect that it hard to prove by measurement. SpinningSpark 07:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

References

Maybe this helps http://www.universetoday.com/85401/gravity-probe-b-confirms-two-of-einsteins-space-time-theories/ --Irbian (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Can someone reword the article's intro so that it actually explains what frame dragging IS? Here's what the intro says; "Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts that non-static, stationary mass-energy distributions affect spacetime in a peculiar way giving rise to a phenomenon usually known as frame-dragging." - Ok, that's great and all, but in WHAT peculiar way? So the phenomenon is known as frame-dragging. Ok great, what phenomenon? What is it? What does it do? Shouldn't the intro actually explain what it is? Seanr451 (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a visible, visual effect? "Frame Dragging" makes me think of Johnny Cage's oldschool shadow moves or the trippy effect in Driver, when you exit the stage boundary. It's easiest done in SanFrancisco, where you can drive down an alley right out of the stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.114.222 (talk) 09:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Frame dragging is, qualitatively, the gravitational analog of electromagnetic induction, with the added proviso that, due to the principle of equivalence, a local free fall observer doesn't "feel" it, but its effects are readily apparent by observing non-local references. Both electromagnetic induction and Frame Dragging arise from the transformation of frames from a moving source of the field. Frame-dragging has the added complication that the magnitude of the field source also depends on the frame. For electromagnetic induction the magnitude of the charge is invariant (although charge density does change). Cloudswrest (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Gravity Probe B experiment is now over

The Gravity Probe B experiment is now over. The summary of results can be found here: http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html The very short conclusion is that it proved Einstein's prediction on frame dragging to a high degree of confidence. This must be updated in the article, instead of the "ongoing experiment" paragraph currently there. Rodrigo Valle (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the paragraph to reflect the experiment is over, added link reference to the actual report, cleaned up the text a bit. Rodrigo Valle (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Updated Gravity Probe B results

New results from Gravity Probe B seems much better than what is presented in this article and should be aligned, you can't have one set of results here and another there that are not identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.52.221 (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The article Gravity Probe B has publications of a later date that are more positive. They were able to remove a lot of the error from the data. Garfield Garfield.

LARES a)

I rewrote a sentence concerning the disagreement by I. Ciufolini with L. Iorio in a more impartial tone. Danguard00 (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

LARES b)

I rewrote the sentence in which the replies by Ciufolini et al. were presented in a more impartial tone. I removed the EPL paper since it is not pertinent: it does not deal with the LARES issue. Danguard00 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Butchery of the article!

On 16 Feb 2016, there was a massive, unexplained deletion of content from this article; I was hoping to find some insight or discussion here on this talk page ... but there is none. From what I can tell, the primary objection was the vast number of citations to Lorenzo Iorio, who, from what I can tell (speculating), is Special:Contributions/Hypernovae19. Now, doing some relatively shallow googling, it appears that Iorio is a professor at an Italian university, is relatively young, having gotten a PhD in 2000, and so by all reasonable expectations, might be expected to be in the very prime of his career. Some more googling suggests that he has several hundred papers published in refereed journals, with dozens of co-authors: this has the general implication that he isn't a crank, as probabilistically, it seems very unlikely that this many co-authors and this many journals would be fooled. I recognize some of these journals as fairly stringent: e.g. Phys Rev Lett is not easy to get into. For example: google scholar shows that his articles are highly cited: hundreds of authors have found his work to be cite-worthy. (actually, he's got more citations than I do) So although perhaps the deluge of citations in this article is a bit unbalanced, I don't see that this is a valid reason to butcher the section on experimental tests. And so, with that explanation, I'm restoring this article to its pre-Feb 2016 state.

I hope that this action does not raise a hornets-nest of reverting and threats; I would much prefer if a somewhat rational discussion could be conducted here. By "rational" I mean: it really would be best and most believable if the objections come from someone who has read and understood either MTW or Weinberg or Adler Bazin Schiffer, (I have) or something along those lines, and/or has published along these lines in some reputable journal (I have), and has some concrete, specific objection to something Iorio is saying: then please, explain what the technical problem is. However, if the problem is a vague gnawing sense of "too many citations", that seems to me like an untenable position. Basically, I'm asking for a "reputable source" that can justify a mass deletion. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems that an even more vast campaign against Iorio is ongoing on WikiEnglish. He is basically treated as a pariah. Also the article on him has been canceled without sound reasons. It should be restored, in my view. 2.237.78.231 (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not a question of portraying Iorio as a crank. The question at hand is whether or not his ideas are mainstream. If they are not mainstream, as appears to be the case, then the issue is undue weight. Iorio can still be mentioned provided that mainstream reliable sources can be found that discuss Iorio and that it is made clear that this is a minority position. SpinningSpark 12:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

So, Spinningspark, did not you notice that the user 67.198.37.16 is (a physicist, it seems) from USA, not from Bari, Italy? Who are you to decide that my papers on that topics are mainstream or not? Are you able to count the citations they received in the database NASA/ADS? And the journals in which they have been published? Who are you to declare that my is a minority position? Why do not you count the citations that the Ciufolini's review on Nature in 2007 has received so far (please, exclude the self-citatiosn) and the citations that my invited review in ApSS 2011 has received so far? Have you missed that, until now, after more than 20 years since the first tests, nobody else in the world has yet published in peer-reviewed journals independent LAGEOS tests of frame-dragging without Ciufolini as coauthor? L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a technical article on a physics topic: if one has not the competences, she/he should not alter its content. Please, be polite and fair, and come to this Talk page to discuss potential issues to improve the article. As everybody can ascertain, the previous user has not any connection with me, apart from the fact that she/he seems to be a physicist working in a close field. Thank you. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Those without technical competence should not alter the technical content, but this is still the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Other editors are still free to address questions such as notability, relevance, and style, which can conceivably lead to the deletion of content without understanding the technicalities. SpinningSpark 12:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Really? this is still the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit? It looks more like an encyclopedia in which a few manifestly incompetentent administrators arbitrarily decide by their own and without discussion to remove whatever they want! Anyone can edit? No, Spinningspark. I was blocked from editing the article on a scientific topic which I have contributed and I am still contributing to by an administrator who declares to be a broker! L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

So, Spinningspark, what would be the issues about notability, relevance, and style which can induce you to arbitrarily decide to remove entirely and solely my papers without any discussion with other users? Why do not let you the other users discuss and decide? Or have you decided in advance that every other voice worldwide contrary to your point of view is automatically a sockpuppet of mine? Are you competent to decide about the notability and relevance of my papers on the topic? Why do not take a look at the database NASA/ADS and count the citations that my papers on that subject have received and the journals in which I published them? What are your competences to decide if they are mainstream or not? After more than ten years that I have published dozens of articles on that topic in a variety of different and independent journals, among which an invited review with other researchers, they would not be mainstream? Does a matter of style allow you to destroy an article as you did instead of dicussing on how to improve it? On which basis did you decide that Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia in the world which prevents the active contributors of a scientific field to contribute to a voice on it? I am curious to hear your arguments other than sockpuppetry, given that your actions were solely and only absed on sockpuppetry issues. Just to let you know, in case you did not notice, the user that restored the article with my citations using her/his IP address was in USA, not in Italy. Or, what is your criterion of sockpuppetry? My street? My town Bari? My region, Puglia? Italy? Some Europen country? The whole world? L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Lorenzo, SpinningSpark, some personal comments. First, Lorenzo, you have to stop being so scandalized and upset and angry about things: this does not help in any way, and will eventually lead to your being banned from editing on WP. Lorenzo, you should be aware that over the last decade, WP has banned hundreds of academics and professors and authorities for a violation of the "civility" clauses. This is a very detrimental, bad behavior on the part of the WP bureaucracy, and I think it explains why the WP science articles are in such terrible condition: The profs and other authorities have been driven away, and what's left are undergraduates in a panic shortly before their mid-term exams, editing articles to fit their mis-understandings of the subject. For example, take a look at the edit history for Lense-Thirring precession: I re-wrote it last night; before that, it was filled with hog-wash and mis-information for almost 9 years (what I wrote is still fairly poor, but now at least its not outright false). That's what happens when WP admins keep banning experts for a violation of civility rules.

So, here's the problem: you are adding too many self-promotional references, which make you sound very important and central to the field, when in fact, what most WP science articles need are expansion, to cover basic topics, and correction to the various innumerable errors they contain. You should think of writing WP articles as being like preparing class lessons for undergrads or grad students: cover the basics, avoid bloopers. Adding citations to everything you've ever published is not really needed or wanted (with occasional exceptions). By adding too many self-citations, and not making other constructive edits, you trigger WP's immune system, which then tries to hunt down and kill you. I've seen it happen too many times. There are web-sites devoted to the scandals on WP.

SpinningSpark: "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" is a laudable goal, but over the last decade, I've watched the WP immune system drive away or ban everyone who is an authority or expert, including some extremely famous, prominent academics who were editing anonymously. The after-effects of this policy are clearly visible: essentially, every article on just about any math of physics topic is in terrible condition: filled is errors, failing to cover vital and important topics, stilted, skewed, mis-informed. Even the "B-class" and some "A-class" articles are in this woeful state. Its not going to get better as long as people like Iorio are antagonized, instead of being groomed into being a better editor. Grooming takes time and effort, but it pays off. Ideally, the WP bureaucracy itself should be fixed, so that those who actually know what they're talking about are not banned ... but that is a task far, far beyond what we can do, here.

So Lorenzo: this is the reality of WP. Best not get angry or scandalized, best to keep your hopes and expectations small and limited. WP needs editors who will take the unglamorous job of filling the potholes in the street. Trying to erect gleaming sky-scrapers is doomed to fail; much more basic needs have to be met first (Including, I believe, a total revamp of WP rules and policy and culture -- we may have to wait several decades for that, as the old-guard gets old and dies; they have too much political power right now.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

post-script: Lorenzo, the best thing you could do right now is to "play nice", and remove most of your citations, leaving only one or two that can act as reviews -- I really do mean "reviews", for example, something that might be published in "Astronomy and Astrophysics Review" or "Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics" -- in that general style. Some day in the distant future, WP might evolve into something more review-like itself, but clearly, as spinningspark demonstrates, the authoring of reviews on WP is strongly frowned upon: WP is and must remain a pre-review, citing mostly textbooks and reviews, an introduction for non-experts, and only rarely something more advanced. Violate that concept, and you get in trouble. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D.: Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy and discourages authors from adding references to their own works, because too many people do so in such a way as to give undue weight to their own work or point of view, or in such as way to violate the neutral point of view requirement. In general, the best way to get edits made where there is a conflict of interest (such as citing your own publications) is to propose additions on the talk page and let disinterested editors decide if they are useful and neutral. This may be frustrating if your suggestions are not accepted right away, but we hope in the long run if a point is worthwhile, someone will see the merit in it.

For all editors, we should keep in mind the need for secondary and tertiary sources, to avoid making predictions about the future, and to avoid recentism. For example, there are currently predictions made in the article about whether or not the Gravity Probe B experiment will be able to confirm frame-dragging, and expectations about what the data would show. These are unconfirmed and inappropriate for Wikipedia; we can just wait for the final results to come out. In fact, the Gravity Probe B article seems to say that some of the predictions of failure were wrong, and that there were major publications in 2011 and 2015 which this article doesn't take into account. If there is a debate going on in scientific journals (primary source articles), we should either not report anything and wait for the debate to settle down, or report that a given point of interest is being debated. What we should not do is report a play-by-play, or decide on our own who is right.

Civility is a must. If we can't discuss our disagreements in a calm and rational way, there is little hope of resolving them successfully and producing a quality product for our readers. Apologies if any off-base accusations of crankery or sockpuppetry have been made by other editors, but Wikipedia gets a lot of both of those and sometimes it's hard to distinguish them from legitimate content and comments. Fortunately, we can discuss and revert any edits which were made in error. -- Beland (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Civility is absolutely the worst policy that WP has, and, if possible, it should be the absolutely the first one to be gotten rid of. It is the one policy that is the most highly responsible for encouraging absolute idiots to edit articles, and causing true experts to be banned, and having the rank-n-file admins be utterly unaware of, utterly incompetent in any topics in any articles in which they are resolving disputes. For example, as best as I can tell, the ONLY person who is an expert in frame-dragging in this argument is Iorio. I know only a small amount, mostly because I've been re-surveying the topics of differential, Riemannian and symplectic geometry recently. I do not believe that User:SpinningSpark or Beland has *ever* studied GR, I doubt either could punch their way out of an integrable system. Ergo, in the normal, real, rational world, Iorio is not only in full-rights to tell both these editors to just fuck-off, but also is duty-bound to do so: it is a duty to maintain truth and accuracy. But wikipedia has created a raft of policies, civility being a tent-pole, that punish such behavior, and guarantee that article quality is low, and will remain low, for a very very very long time. Its a complete fucking train wreck, and everyone supporting that policy is a complete unequivocal dunder-head. Pffft. WP is its own worst enemy. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Much like gravity-probe B. If I recall correctly, it suffered from severe engineering defects that were not discovered until after it was placed in orbit. There was a HUGE amount of acrimony and controversy and lack of civility over that: it ate a large part of the gravity research budget and ended in nearly total failure (I guess they managed to eke out some data in the end, but it was mediocre -- kind of like WP articles). Why does the Gravity-probe B article not mention any of this controversy? Who knows? Maybe because anyone who knows anything has been driven away by WP policies? Controversy is a fact of life, and to pretend that its not is like, I dunno ... insert some unreal analogy here ... its like denying the reality of the current US presidential campaign.67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)