Talk:Frame-dragging

Incomplete sentence
Should the partial sentence "Although extensively studied by various groups," be removed, or is there a second part to that thought which it is worthwhile to add? -- Beland (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * See above. It is due to a mass deletion of content, being argued over.67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Cooperating
As I independently wrote to Spinningspark on its Talk page before the most recent, quite interesting and important evolutions here and in the US-based Talk page, I am absolutely ready to be engaged diplomatically and to cooperate. I agree with the idea of reducing the amount of citations to my works and, if required, to rewrite some sentences in a more impartial tone, if it is the case. Thank you. PS Just a reminder in view of possible, future evolutions of this issue. Please, do not forget that during the editing war which took place years ago in the article, an editor from Italy (try to guess his identity..) repeatedly and systematically removed only and all my references. On the contrary, his references were (correctly) never removed during that editing war. It is not unreasonable that he and/or some of his fellows will soon glide there attracted by the clamor raised so far..L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal – again
It appeared another incompetent jerk who claims to vandalize the page. Can anyone intervene, please? This time, this stoned did not even notice that I was reducing the number of my own citations.... L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's have people intervene. I'll file an WP:ANI request to get you blocked for violation our policies on conflicts of interests and civility, and treating Wikipedia like a battleground. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You can file all the requests you like: you are and will remain an utter jerk, as shown by your actions. If you read the previous contributions to this talk page by another user, you should make your mind a little clearer about civilty and other issues. About the battleground, it was the repeated vandalization by you and other jerks admins like you, incompetent and arrogant, which generated it. And now, please, go ahead to run whining and screaming to mummy playing with all your rules, files, and so on, given that it is the only thing that you and your colleagues can do here. Bye. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Individuals whose existences are defined by a doctorate... *sigh* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.93.81 (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, so, now that some time has passed, and maybe emotions have cooled a bit, can we get around to restoring the edits there were deleted here? From what I can tell, there was a bunch of hot-headed edit-warring, not based on technical merit, but on raw emotional outbursts. There's lots of... shouting ... in the talk page archives, but its hard to reconstruct what, exactly, was objectionable, other than ungentlemanly behavior.. I'd like to see the content restored, because it seemed to provide some interesting information, I found it rather interesting.

I was asked about this matter on my talk page, and responded there. I'd like to quote what I said. First, an admin wrote to me:


 * Hello 67.198.37.16. Per the location of your IP you may possibly be connected with a research group at University of Texas. It seems you've been doing good work at Lense–Thirring precession. Since you commented at Talk:Frame-dragging I'd like to know if you have any suggestions on how to resolve the dispute about Iorio's work. Evidently he has some academic credibility, though his views are not universally held. The usual standards applied by Wikipedia administrators indicate that mass restoration of references to Iorio's work are unlikely to be allowed to remain. Though I am not a practicing physicist, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, and we do have active physicists who can be called upon (if we can get their attention). Can you recommend any review articles that mention Iorio's work that could be cited to show the degree to which he has mainstream credibility?  Also I recommend that you create an account. Thanks for your contributions, EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I responded:
 * I'm not sure where to reply, so I'll reply briefly here, and in the other article. From what I can tell, the dispute is about self-promotion, not credibility, right? I can try to google up some review article, but I don't see how credibility would be an issue: some simple search terms typed into google suggests he has hundreds of papers published in refereed journals, with dozens of co-authors. Its impossible to "pull the wool" over that many people, so my general impression is that he is "academically credible". Regarding "views (that) are not universally held", well, that is an issue as old as science itself.  Modern-day examples can be found by looking at exit polls taken at academic conferences: typically, some handful of controversial questions are asked, and the replies are inevitably 1/3 to 2/3rds one way or another, and when asked again 5 or 10 years later, the replies invariably flip-flop.  Is there some specific attack that you are aware of?


 * I thought I'd dig around, I just now skimmed the a sequence of papers on the Mars Global Surveyor data, where there's work by Iorio and a rebuttal by Krogh, and a rebut to that by Iorio, again. If you read through these, they read like standard scientific controversies: neither is claiming that the other is not credible: they're wrangling over details: apparently, Iorio said "5 years" when he should have said "5 years and 2 months". Apparently he is "misinterpreting data": over the course of the mission, better gravitational modelling of the  mountains on Mars has resulted in better estimates of the trajectory of the satellite, decreasing the errors of orbital estimates ... by the time people are arguing over stuff like that, you have to  assume they're both credible, and its a standard controversy, and possibly one or both sides are making mistakes.  When I search for Evidence of the gravitomagnetic field of Mars google tells me that its "Cited by 60" and clicking on that link indeed shows all sorts of citations.  Its hard to get that many citations, period, under any circumstances. To get that many if you're not credible is nearly impossible (but I suppose it happens.)

Why are there so many references to general relativity in this page? It's clear that motion is a topic here, but it's not clear to me that this is a prediction of general relativity. Can someone add these links or provide commentary from a reputable source to clear this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.209.23 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * So again, I assume that the issue is excessive self-promotion, rather than technical merit. I don't really know how to deal with self-promotion. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not able to restore the edits myself, the page is locked. But someone should do the right thing here, and restore that content. If this can't be done, some reason for this should be given here. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. SpinningSpark 08:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frame-dragging. 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/20080921103646/http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophysics/about-us/science-strategy/senior-reviews/AstroSR08_Report.pdf/ to http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophysics/about-us/science-strategy/senior-reviews/AstroSR08_Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

== A problematic theory: dark matter as a result of frame-dragging of different masses at large orders of magnitude (due to field inertia, so the bodies keep their masses, but the space bending among stars doesn't immediately vanish when they recede) == Not proven. The term "extra space bending" is correct. The other components of this theory are problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:821E:7800:C898:6726:F7D:40E5 (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there a problem with our article? SpinningSpark 18:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Experimental Results
I added the published claims of NASA with links that are currently active. Astrojed (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Added reference to article in peer reviewed journal. Astrojed (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Controversy
Frame dragging has potential for far reaching consequences in science and engineering, more so than academic test of general relativity.

The controversy is expected to be large and long lasting until independent research has confirmed or discredited the claims and counter claims.

Especially linear frame dragging has potential to change the prospects of distant space travel, which causes the research community to be strict and vigilant in the reading of data, and possibly biased for or against as pioneers in science were in historic debates of fundamental principles.

I feel that frame dragging may become one of the historical debates on fundamentals, challenging Wikipedia writers to uphold the principles. Astrojed (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Wrong description of image
The image with description starting "The two surfaces on which the Kerr metric..." has a different color coding (ergosphere = outer pale pink region) than in the description itself. Obviously either the description or the image legend is wrong. Could some specialist fix that? --FDominec (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The diagram was created by User:Yukterez. But I wouldn't hold out for a quick response – last edited in December. SpinningSpark 16:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it might be consistent, but the confusion is arising because the first two colours in the key are referring to boundaries and the third one is referring to the region between the boundaries. Basically, it is an awful choice of colour scheme because the region colours are very similar to the boundary colours.  It would help if the horizons were shown in the key as lines rather than chips. SpinningSpark 16:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and - You're right, the colors are awful, but there is another one with better colors, see here, if you want you can use that but then you'd have to update the image description as well, which I am too lazy for right now but if you or someone else wants to feel free. --Yukterez (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Galaxies-AGN-Inner-Structure.svg

Relevance of Mach and Malec 2015?
At the end of the introduction section there's a paragraph talking about a GR extension of Newtonian rotation, "which incorporates a newly discovered antidragging effect" (the nature of this antidragging effect is not explained, nor the effect is mentioned anywhere else in the article). A citation to Mach and Make 2015 follows.

To me, the paragraph seems confusing (it doesn't explain anything), possibly not relevant for the article and definitely out of place in the introduction section. Almost as if the paragraph were just a promotion of the paper.

I would suggest to move the paragraph to a later section (maybe the one describing the effects?), rewrite it to actually explain what it is about, or delete it altogether.

Disclaimer: I am not familiar with the paper, I don't know the authors and I don't work in the field of general relativity. 130.183.89.239 (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)