Talk:Geodetic effect

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

Ideas for expansion[edit]

A diagram illustrating the effect.
An explanation of what the "related effect" predicted by Willem de Sitter was.
Filling out the history of the effect.
Explaining the name.
Differentiating from frame dragging, and explaining how Gravity Probe B can measure both.
Mention of any other empirical confirmation.

-- Beland 07:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COME ON PEOPLE!! Wikipedia is not supposed to be a textbook, it's supposed to be a place where people share knowledge and internet users can come to research and understand. I'm getting tired of the jargon and undefined terms used in complex articles; use an example (or if need be, an analogy) and help people understand what's happening. I want to be able to comprehend what I'm reading without needing a degree in theoretical- or astro-physics, for Christ's sake. There are 50 other sites I could visit if I wanted to hear it from a textbook-author's point of view. But I want to UNDERSTAND it! 97% of internet users wouldn't know what the hell to make of this article, so you're not helping anyone.

Yes, I'd like to see some discussion of the magnitude of the effect, preferably in terms I could relate to everyday life.

Currently the article says that the Geodetic effect is "the effect on rotating objects... etc," but what is this effect? There should be an actually sentence that says what its effect is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.56.215 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

derivation[edit]

The derivation was short on interpretation and justification. I added some physical interpretation after the fact, but it's quite possible that some of my interpretation is wrong, and needs to be corrected. There's quite a big gap in the reasoning at the point where it refers to canonical form. The wikilink is just to a very generic article on canonical forms throughout all of mathematics.--207.233.88.250 (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-spinning bodies move in geodesics"[edit]

Real rigid bodies do not move on geodesics. Only idealized test particles and spheres of uniform density move on geodesics. The center of mass of a non-spherical or non-uniform rigid body is, in general, accelerated with respect to it's instantaneously co-moving inertial frame.

Thomas precession[edit]

The decomposition of the effect into a Thomas precession and an effect due to spatial curvature is controversial. I've moved it out of the lead and provided a reference to MTW for the opposite point of view. As far as I know, Rindler is idiosyncratic in describing the breakdown into the two parts in this way. Both MTW and Rindler are reliable sources (standard textbooks written by very well known relativists), so I don't think WP can really make a call one way or the other, unless maybe someone can demonstrate that there is far more weight of expert opinion on one side than the other. Personally I think MTW are right and Rindler's point of view is goofy and unnatural, for the reasons given here: http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/genrel/ch06/ch06.html#Section6.2 (see text at "One will see apparently contradictory statements in the literature...").--75.83.69.196 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MTW statement is misleading. The way you get zero TP is by using a set of coordinates that rotate along with the TP. MTW use such coordinates. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8043/decomposing-geodetic-de-sitter-effect-into-thomas-precession-and-spatial-curvatur

References[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geodetic effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922110819/http://www.rdrop.com/users/green/school/framdrag.htm to http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]