<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1105.3456/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1105.3456/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity — mentioned by panda-giddiness</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30254544</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1105.3456:30254544</guid><pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2022 03:18:10 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;These effects are technically present but negligible for all practical purposes (well, unless you&amp;#x27;re building the next Gravity Probe B). The geodetic precession for a satellite in polar LEO is roughly 1 deg per 500 years [1]; the other types are orders of magnitude smaller. You&amp;#x27;ve made a good point, however, that two of these types of precession are evidence that the Earth spins (whether you could convince a flat-Earther of Thomas precession is a separate matter). But let me offer a gentle correction: Thomas and Lense-Thirring precessions are caused by the rotation of the Earth, whereas the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1105.3456/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>gr-qc</category></item><item><title>Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity — mentioned by humbledrone</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2569751</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1105.3456:2569751</guid><pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 23:13:35 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;This experiment did not set out to &amp;quot;prove&amp;quot; anything. I think you&amp;#x27;ll find that the original article does not use the word &amp;quot;prove&amp;quot; even once. The experiment set out to experimentally test the accuracy of Einstein&amp;#x27;s predictions. The results of the experiment showed that under these specific circumstances, the predictions line up extremely well with observations. There&amp;#x27;s no &amp;quot;control group&amp;quot; for this kind of test. Of course, they could potentially run multiple experiments to verify Einstein&amp;#x27;s predictions under different circumstances. That might provide useful information, but the lack of such…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1105.3456/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>gr-qc</category></item></channel></rss>
