Talk:Gravity Probe A

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gravity Probe A article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Physics: Relativity Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

Remove "clutter"

I removed the "See also" link to Actor model history because it only adds very limited amount of information to this experiment, and thus is just "clutter" in my view. Awolf002 18:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus on whether this experiment was to test the theory of "general" relativity or "special" relativity? The word general/special in this article seems to be changing back and forth each day.

As stated by the paper's abstract, this was a test of general relativity. Edits which change this to special relativity are vandalism.Whosasking 15:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. For over 50 years, the consensus among relativists has been that the distinction between special and general relativity is the one between flat and curved spacetime (not the generalization from inertial frames to accelerated ones, as Einstein initially explained it). From a modern point of view, this experiment is a test of special relativity, and of the equivalence principle, but not of general relativity.--76.169.116.244 (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits to present the experiment as a test of the e.p. or just of "relativity," which is the correct description according to today's understanding.--76.169.116.244 (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational potential, not field

The article contained some mistaken or misleading statements to the effect that time is affected by the gravitational field. This is wrong. It's affected by the gravitational potential, essentially the height in the gravitational field. I've made a couple of edits to fix the mistakes.--76.169.116.244 (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Errors

Floor accelerates to which observer? and who see a bend light beam? Dates are strange inthe info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.147.143 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]