<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>The Relativistic Geoid: Gravity Potential and Relativistic Effects · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1912.10159/</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/1912.10159/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The Relativistic Geoid: Gravity Potential and Relativistic Effects — mentioned by raattgift</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39934187</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1912.10159:39934187</guid><pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2024 18:31:49 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;tl;dr on this long comment: the article is about a 1960s mistake and how a paper demonstrates an improved model Earth that has non-uniform density can do better than the simplest fix. New Scientist gets an important bit of science wrong, surprise. And some links to even deeper (pardon the pun) studies of the relativistic effects of Earth&amp;#x27;s gravitation. Well, even though this is resurrected from 2016 it seems to have captured my attention for a bit. :-) Before this HN posting I had not read the article nor the paper it discusses. (I had read all the other linked items below.) The arxiv version…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1912.10159/"&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>
