Talk:Geodesic deviation

Too Technical?

I contest the notion that ANY content can be too technical for WP. That as a corollary of my contention that any scientific truth must ultimately be explicable to the citizen of average or slight above average intelligence or else it's an Irrlehre. That explanation may be beyond the patience of the technician or the lay person but it must be in principle available and that is part of the encyclopædic mission. Nonetheless I will retain my detailed article on this subject in my wikimedia instance. Lycurgus 10:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you view "years of study" to be an explanation, you are wrong. I doubt you could explain Sheaf Cohomology in any meaningful way in under 24 hours to a random person. Of course, you could just give them some very poor analogies that don't really add up to much; though, this isn't explaning. At any rate, being too complicated should not be grounds for exclusion; it would be better to have advanced material at its easiest level included than it would be to exclude it (additonal material doesn't hurt anything). Finally, I can't really tell what you're point was from the start, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in. Phoenix1177 (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Could this article be expanded with examples where the GR interpretation of inertia differs from the Newtonian one? Regarding technicality, it'd be great to link to some central article which deals with the mathematics required to understand General Relativity. PAStheLoD (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"If you can't explain it to somebody's grandmother, you don't really understand it."

Albert Einstein said "If you can't explain it to somebody's grandmother, you don't really understand it.", and Richard Feynman was similarly quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.128.155 (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. I note this reverses a previous move 07:29, 30 July 2005‎ Charles Matthews (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (41 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (Geodesic deviation moved to Geodesic deviation equation) the evidence of which has been overwritten by this one. Andrewa (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Geodesic deviation equation → Geodesic deviation – This article should be moved to geodesic deviation, since the equation is secondary to the actual concept. This is consistent with the practice for other articles; for example, geodesic equation is a redirect to geodesic. Zueignung (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea to me. One small question that I have, though, is whether there is scope for the two separate articles Jacobi field and geodesic deviation. I could be easily persuaded that a merge might be appropriate. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• The move request looks like a good idea to me, too. Mark viking (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.