Talk:Frame-dragging

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Incomplete sentence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cooperating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is there a problem with our article? SpinningSpark 18:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  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) 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title:  Wrong description of image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relevance of Mach and Malec 2015?