Using the Difference of the Inclinations of a Pair of Counter-Orbiting Satellites to Measure the Lense-Thirring Effect

Lorenzo Iorio

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 16 references

Using the Difference of the Inclinations of a Pair of Counter-Orbiting Satellites to Measure the Lense-Thirring Effect

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Two counter-orbiting satellites can cancel the classical bias and isolate the Lense-Thirring effect through the difference of their orbital inclinations.

desk verdict A clean new symmetry argument for using inclination differences to cancel J2 in Lense-Thirring tests, but the practical feasibility claim outruns the error analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03945 v1 pith:F4SY6SD4 submitted 2024-12-05 gr-qc astro-ph.EPphysics.space-ph

Lorenzo Iorio This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.EPphysics.space-ph PACS 04.80.Cc

keywords Lense-Thirringeffectframedraggingsatelliteorbitsorbitalinclinationcounter-orbitingsatellitesgeneralrelativitytestsgravitomagnetismlaserranging

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a new way to measure the Lense-Thirring (frame-dragging) effect around the Earth using two satellites in identical polar orbits that move in opposite directions. The key algebraic fact is that, for such a counter-orbiting pair, the relativistic rates of change of orbital inclination are equal and opposite, while the classical rates caused by the Earth's quadrupole moment are identical. Taking the difference of the inclinations therefore doubles the relativistic signal while cancelling the dominant classical one. Numerical integrations over ten years with realistic injection errors show the residual quadrupole-induced bias stays at a manageable level. The paper also finds that the existing LAGEOS-LARES2 configuration cannot achieve the same cancellation.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the pair of averaged rate equations for the orbital inclination, Equations (5) and (6), expressed as dot products between the unit vectors of the orbit and the primary's spin axis. For two satellites on identical orbits in opposite directions, the orbital unit vectors transform so that the Lense-Thirring dot product changes sign while the quadrupole dot product does not, which is the algebraic core of the cancellation. The additional condition of a polar orbit with the ascending node aligned with the spin-axis right ascension makes the classical quadrupole inclination rate vanish identically, leaving only the relativistic rate.

What would settle it

A simulation that adds a full high-degree gravity field and standard non-gravitational force models to the two-satellite inclination difference would show whether the residual $J_2$ bias stays near the level claimed here; if the ratio of the modelled $J_2$ difference to the Lense-Thirring difference grows above a few hundred, the proposed cancellation guarantee fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the difference of the orbital inclinations of two counter-orbiting satellites provides a practical observable for the Lense-Thirring effect. For an arbitrary orientation of the primary's spin axis, the averaged Lense-Thirring inclination rate is equal and opposite for the two satellites, while the averaged Newtonian quadrupole rate is identical, as follows from the general expressions in Equations (5) and (6). Hence the difference of the inclination shifts cancels the classical $J_2$ signal and sums the relativistic ones. For polar orbits with the ascending node aligned so that the spin axis lies in the orbital plane, the classical inclination rate vanishes identically while the relativistic one remains, making the cancellation exact in the ideal model. A ten-year numerical simulation including the secular and annual variation of $J_2$ and the precession of the Earth's spin axis shows that, for an orbital height of 2000 km and injection errors comparable to those of existing satellites, the ratio of the residual $J_2$ difference to the Lense-Thirring difference stays below about 80, while for the node sum the corresponding ratio is about 90. The same analysis applied to LAGEOS and LARES 2 yields ratios that are orders of magnitude larger, so the claimed 0.2% accuracy for that experiment is not attainable.

Load-bearing premise

The cancellation is exact only in the model that keeps just the $J_2$ quadrupole (with its secular and annual variations) and the precessing spin axis; real satellites also experience higher-degree gravity harmonics, lunisolar tides, and, most importantly, non-gravitational accelerations such as drag and radiation pressure, which the paper does not model for passive spacecraft.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A future pair of passive polar satellites at about 2000 km altitude would yield a Lense-Thirring inclination signal of a few milliarcseconds over ten years, with the $J_2$ bias ratio held below about 80.
The same cancellation applies to the sum of the nodes: the relativistic node rates add while the $J_2$ node rates cancel, confirming that the counter-orbiting geometry is conceptually equivalent to earlier node-based proposals.
Injection errors in the semimajor axes, eccentricities, inclinations, and nodes up to $10$ km, $0.004$, $100$ mas, and $0.1^\circ$, respectively, do not destroy the cancellation of the classical inclination shifts.
The current LAGEOS-LARES2 experiment cannot reach its claimed $0.2\%$ accuracy because the real orbital elements do not satisfy the cancellation conditions, either for the node sum or for the inclination difference.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the cancellation is common-mode for anything that affects the two satellites' inclinations identically, a successful POLARES mission could simultaneously constrain slow time variations in the Earth's $J_2$ coefficient, which would appear as a residual in the difference.
The same inclination-difference strategy could be transferred to other planets with known spin-axis geometry; for example, tracking a counter-orbiting pair at Jupiter would separate the frame-dragging signal from zonal harmonics more cleanly than a single spacecraft can.
The paper defers non-gravitational accelerations; a realistic mission study would need to show that solar radiation pressure and atmospheric drag, which differ between two spacecraft even on nearly identical orbits, can be modelled or compensated well enough not to swamp the few-milliarcsecond relativistic signal.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core of this paper is a genuinely new and correct algebraic observation: for two counter-orbiting satellites on identical orbits, the Lense-Thirring inclination rates are equal and opposite while the J2 rates are equal, so the difference cancels the classical bias. The paper also correctly notes that the inclination has never been used in this context. The general expressions in Section 2 are derived carefully for an arbitrary spin-axis orientation, and the symmetry argument itself is internally consistent.

Where the paper gets into trouble is Section 3. The numerical integrations are a reasonable first pass, and the paper is honest about deferring non-gravitational accelerations to future work. But the central feasibility claim rests on a non-sequitur. The paper notes that the uncancelled J2 inclination difference is only ~80 times the LT signal and then asserts that this makes the indirect impact of parameter errors negligible. That does not follow: to measure LT at even the 10% level, you need to model that 80-times-larger J2 residual to about 0.1% accuracy, and at 1% accuracy you need ~0.01%. No covariance or Monte Carlo propagation is provided, and the model includes only J2, its secular and annual variations, and spin-axis precession. Higher-degree zonals, lunisolar tides, and particularly non-gravitational accelerations are left out, and those can break the A/B symmetry. The LAGEOS-LARES 2 comparison in Section 4 uses the same simplified model, so its negative conclusion is also not fully supported. There is also a minor typo in the definition of the semilatus rectum (missing square in the eccentricity term).

None of this undermines the algebraic core, which is sound and worth preserving. The paper is aimed at mission-concept people and those working on laser-ranged satellite tests of GR. It deserves a serious referee, but the acceptance should be conditional on an end-to-end error budget and a reproducible numerical setup. I would bring it to our reading group as a useful example of a correct idea with an overclaimed feasibility analysis.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives the post-Newtonian Lense-Thirring and Newtonian J2 rates of change of orbital inclination and node for an arbitrary orientation of the primary's spin axis, and shows that for two counter-orbiting satellites on ideally identical orbits (I_B = 180° − I_A, Ω_B = Ω_A + 180°), the LT inclination rates are equal and opposite while the J2 rates are identical. It then proposes a polar-orbit mission concept (POLARES) that would use the difference of the inclinations (and the sum of the nodes) to isolate the LT effect, and simulates the impact of injection errors over 10 years, obtaining nominal J2/LT ratios of about 80 for the inclination difference and about 90 for the node sum. The same analysis is applied to LAGEOS and LARES 2, with the conclusion that their actual configurations cannot reach the 0.2% accuracy claimed elsewhere.

Significance. The ideal-geometry cancellation is a clean and potentially useful addition to the LT measurement toolbox, and the paper correctly identifies the inclination difference as a new observable that has not been exploited in previous work. The derivation in Section 2 is transparent and internally consistent, and the paper explicitly acknowledges several limitations, including the need to study non-gravitational accelerations for passive satellites. However, the practical feasibility claim rests on an unquantified error budget; as it stands, the paper demonstrates an exact mathematical symmetry but not a viable measurement concept with a stated accuracy.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.1, Eq. (24), Fig. 1] The assertion that |I_J2| ≈ 80 implies that mismodeling of the parameters entering Eq. (24) is negligible is a non sequitur. A residual J2 shift of about 350 mas over 10 years must be known to about 0.04 mas to recover a 1% LT signal of about 4 mas, i.e., a relative accuracy of roughly 10^-4. The paper provides no covariance analysis, Monte Carlo propagation, or sensitivity study for J2, its secular and annual variations, the spin-axis precession model, or the orbital elements. Because the entire practical case for POLARES rests on this claim, a quantitative error budget is required.
[Sections 2–3] The cancellation proof applies only to the J2 term in Eqs. (5)–(8). Higher-degree zonal harmonics, tesseral and sectorial terms, solid and ocean tides, and other Newtonian perturbations do not automatically share the same symmetry under Eqs. (12)–(13); at an altitude of 2000 km and with mas-level LT signals, these effects are not negligible a priori. The paper does not demonstrate their cancellation or bound their contribution, so the statement that the classical bias is reduced to an 'acceptable level' is unsupported.
[Section 5] The paper explicitly defers a detailed treatment of non-gravitational accelerations for passive LAGEOS-type satellites to future work. For a difference-of-inclinations observable, solar radiation pressure, Earth albedo, and thermal effects can produce satellite-dependent inclination rates that do not cancel between A and B. Since the proposed mission concept is for passive satellites without drag-free compensation, at least order-of-magnitude estimates of these effects on the inclination difference are needed before the proposed measurement accuracy can be assessed.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.1, Fig. 1 caption] The text states that the semimajor-axis offset is 'up to 4 km,' while the caption says 'up to an offset of 10 km'; please reconcile these values.
[Eq. (24)] Using the symbol I_J2 for the ratio is confusing because I denotes the inclination throughout the paper; consider renaming the ratio, for example R_J2.
[Figure captions 1–4] The captions say the initial inclinations differ from the ideal values by 10 mas, but the text also mentions node offsets of 10 arcseconds; please specify both quantities clearly in each caption.
[Section 3.1] The statement that offsets in the orbital elements are 'well tolerated' is qualitative; reporting the actual range of offsets tested and the resulting maximum |I_J2| would improve reproducibility.
[References] Reference [55] is cited for the precession model of the spin axis, but the specific model (e.g., IAU 2006 precession) is not named; please identify it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the cancellation result follows algebraically from standard formulas and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a direct algebraic consequence of standard, externally established expressions for the Lense-Thirring and J2 rates of change of the inclination and node, given in Equations (5)-(8). The counter-orbiting conditions of Equations (12)-(13) are applied to those formulas, and the text itself shows that the LT inclination rates are equal and opposite while the J2 inclination rates are identical. No constant is fitted to data, no prediction is derived from prior measurements by the author, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the choice of observable. The author's self-citations ([36], [50], [51]) are contextual or comparative and are not load-bearing for the derivation: the comparison with LAGEOS-LARES 2 is peripheral, and the core POLARES proposal is explicitly credited to Van Patten and Everitt rather than presented as new. The admitted limitation that non-gravitational accelerations are not analyzed in detail is a practical feasibility concern, not a circularity. The ratio defined in Equation (24) is used only to quantify the nominal uncancelled J2 signal; the accompanying assertion that the ~80-times-larger residual makes parameter mismodeling negligible is an unquantified error-analysis claim, which belongs to correctness risk rather than to circularity. The derivation itself is self-contained against the standard formulas and external gravity models, so no circular step can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The POLARES concept is a proposed satellite configuration, not a new physical entity; no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The free parameters are scenario or injection-error values chosen by hand for the numerical example, not fitted constants. The central symmetry argument itself is parameter-free.

free parameters (5)

Orbital altitude offset = up to 10 km, with 4 km stated in text, for a 2000 km baseline
Hand-picked scenario value; controls the residual J2 signal in Figures 1-2 and is not optimized or mission-derived.
Initial inclination offset delta_I0 = 10 mas
Represents orbit injection error; directly sets the imperfection of the cancellation in Equation (24).
Initial node offset delta_Omega0 = 10 arcsec, with tolerance up to 0.1 degrees
Chosen injection error; larger offsets degrade the J2/LT ratio.
Eccentricity difference = 0.00376
Adopted for the two almost circular orbits; changes the J2 residual through the semilatus rectum dependence.
Start epoch = 35 years after J2000.0
Assumed launch in the next decade; controls the spin-axis misalignment and hence the size of the LT inclination signal.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The orbital dynamics are fully described by the first post-Newtonian gravitomagnetic term and the Newtonian J2 quadrupole term, as in Equations (5)-(8).
Invoked in Section 2; the entire cancellation argument ignores higher zonal harmonics, tides, and non-gravitational forces.
domain assumption The ECI reference frame used in data reductions has its z axis aligned with the J2000.0 mean equator, while Earth's spin axis has moved relative to it, so the declination differs from 90 degrees.
Section 2 after Equation (8); if the declination were exactly 90 degrees, the LT inclination rate would vanish and the proposed observable would disappear.
domain assumption Orbit-averaged secular rates remain valid over ten-year integrations; short-period and resonant effects are neglected.
The numerical integration in Section 3 uses only the averaged Equations (5)-(8).
ad hoc to paper The two satellites can be launched into the ideal counter-orbiting configuration with I_B = 180 degrees minus I_A and Omega_B = Omega_A plus 180 degrees, and the polar condition I = 90 degrees and Omega = alpha, up to small injection errors.
This is the mission design premise; the cancellation is exact only in this ideal geometry.
standard math Equations (5)-(8) for arbitrary spin-axis orientation are taken from prior literature and are accepted without re-derivation.
The paper quotes these as general expressions; they are standard post-Newtonian and quadrupole results.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Using the Difference of the Inclinations of a Pair of Counter-Orbiting Satellites to Measure the Lense-Thirring Effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F4SY6SD4

@misc{pith2026241203945,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Using the Difference of the Inclinations of a Pair of Counter-Orbiting Satellites to Measure the Lense-Thirring Effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F4SY6SD4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03945}
}

read the original abstract

Let two test particles A and B revolving about a spinning primary along ideally identical orbits in opposite directions be considered. From the general expressions of the precessions of the orbital inclination induced by the post-Newtonian gravitomagnetic and Newtonian quadrupolar fields of the central object, it turns out that the Lense-Thirring inclination rates of A and B are equal and opposite, while the Newtonian ones due to the primary's oblateness are identical. Thus, the difference of the inclination shifts of the two orbiters would allow, in principle, to cancel out the classical effects by enhancing the general relativistic ones. The conditions affecting the orbital configurations that must be satisfied for this to occur and possible observable consequences in the field of Earth are investigated. In particular, a scenario involving two spacecraft in polar orbits, branded POLAr RElativity Satellites (POLARES) and reminiscent of an earlier proposal by Van Patten and Everitt in the mid-1970s, is considered. A comparison with the ongoing experiment with the LAser GEOdynamics Satellite (LAGEOS) and LAser RElativity Satellite (LARES) 2 is made.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03945 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Differences of the nominal LT (upper panel) and J2 (middle panel) shifts of the inclinations, in mas, of a pair of counter–orbiting satellites numerically integrated over 10 years. The temporal variations of both kˆ [55, pp. 176-177] and J2, modeled according to ITSGGrace2018, were included as well. An initial epoch 35 years after J2000.0 was assumed. An orbital height of 2 000 km was adopted for both satellites up… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Differences of the nominal LT (upper panel) and J2 (middle panel) shifts of the inclinations, in mas, of LAGEOS and LARES 2 numerically integrated over 10 years. The temporal variations of both kˆ [55, pp. 176-177] and J2, modeled according to ITSG-Grace2018, were included as well. The launch date of LARES 2 was assumed as initial epoch. The initial values of the satellites’ semimajor axis, eccentricity and inclinat… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Sums of the nominal LT (upper panel) and J2 (middle panel) shifts of the nodes, in mas, of LAGEOS and LARES 2 numerically integrated over 10 years. The temporal variations of both kˆ [55, pp. 176-177] and J2, modeled according to ITSG-Grace2018, were included as well. …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

¨Uber den Einﬂuß der Eigenrotation der Zentralk ¨orper auf die Bewegung der Planeten und Monde nach der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie,

[1]J. Lense and H. Thirring, “ ¨Uber den Einﬂuß der Eigenrotation der Zentralk ¨orper auf die Bewegung der Planeten und Monde nach der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie,”Phys. Z 19 (1918) 156–163. [2]B. Mashhoon, F. W. Hehl, and D. S. Theiss, “On the gravitational eﬀects of rotating masses: The Thirring–Lense papers.,”Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 16 (1984) 711–7...

work page 1918
[10]

Phenomenology of the Lense-Thirring effect in the Solar System

[36]L. Iorio, H. I. M. Lichtenegger, M. L. Ruggiero, and C. Corda, “Phenomenology of the Lense–Thirring eﬀect in the solar system,”Astrophys. Space Sci. 331 (2011) 351–395, arXiv:1009.3225 [gr-qc] . [37]I. Ciufolini, A. Paolozzi, R. Koenig, et al., “Fundamental Physics and General Relativity with the LARES and LAGEOS satellites,”Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl....

work page Pith review arXiv 2011
[87]

Limitations in Testing the Lense-Thirring Effect with LAGEOS and the Newly Launched Geodetic Satellite LARES 2

[50]L. Iorio, “Limitations in Testing the Lense–Thirring Eﬀect with LAGEOS and the Newly Launched Geodetic Satellite LARES 2,”Universe 9 (2023) 211, arXiv:2304.14649 [gr-qc] . [51]L. Iorio, “A new proposal for measuring the Lense-Thirring eﬀect with a pair of supplementary satellites in the gravitational ﬁeld of the Earth,” Phys. Lett. A 308 (2003) 81–84,...

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[141]

A 1% Measurement of the Gravitomagnetic Field of the Earth with Laser–Tracked Satellites,

[40]D. M. Lucchesi, M. Visco, R. Peron, et al., “A 1% Measurement of the Gravitomagnetic Field of the Earth with Laser–Tracked Satellites,”Universe 6 (2020)

work page 2020
[145]

Measurement of dragging of inertial frames and gravitomagnetic ﬁeld using laser–ranged satellites.,

[33]I. Ciufolini, D. M. Lucchesi, F. Vespe, and A. Mandiello, “Measurement of dragging of inertial frames and gravitomagnetic ﬁeld using laser–ranged satellites.,” Nuovo Cim. A 109A (1996) 575–590. [34]M. Pearlman, D. Arnold, M. Davis, et al., “Laser geodetic satellites: a high-accuracy scientiﬁc tool,”J. Geod. 93 (2019) 2181–2194. [35]D. Coulot, F. Deleﬂ...

work page 1996
[413]

The Juno Mission,

[30]S. J. Bolton, J. Lunine, D. Stevenson, et al., “The Juno Mission,”Space Sci. Rev. 213 (2017) 5–37. [31]S. Finocchiaro, L. Iess, W. M. Folkner, and S. Asmar, “The Determination of Jupiter’s Angular Momentum from the Lense-Thirring Precession of the Juno Spacecraft,” inAGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, vol. 2011, pp. P41B–1620

work page 2017
[1959]

Possible new experimental test of general relativity theory,

[22]L. Schiﬀ, “Possible new experimental test of general relativity theory,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 4 (1960) 215–217. [23]C. W. F. Everitt, D. B. Debra, B. W. Parkinson,et al., “Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 221101, arXiv:1105.3456 [gr-qc] . [24]C. W. F. Everitt, B. Muhlfelder, D. B. ...

arXiv 1960
[1987]

Reassessment of the error modelling of non–gravitational perturbations on LAGEOS II and their impact in the Lense–Thirring determination. Part I,

[42]D. M. Lucchesi, “Reassessment of the error modelling of non–gravitational perturbations on LAGEOS II and their impact in the Lense–Thirring determination. Part I,”Planet. Space Sci. 49 (2001) 447–463. [43]D. M. Lucchesi, “Reassessment of the error modelling of non–gravitational perturbations on LAGEOS II and their impact in the Lense–Thirring derivati...

work page 2001

Show all 16 references

[2000]

On the high accuracy to test dragging of inertial frames with the LARES 2 space experiment,

[56]I. Ciufolini, C. Paris, E. C. Pavlis, et al., “On the high accuracy to test dragging of inertial frames with the LARES 2 space experiment,”Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024)

2024
[2001]

Estimation of Solar Angular Momentum from Lense–Thirring Precession of Mercury,

[27]R. S. Park, W. M. Folkner, and A. S. Konopliv, “Estimation of Solar Angular Momentum from Lense–Thirring Precession of Mercury,”IAU General Assembly 22 (2015) 2227771. [28]D. Pavlov and I. Dolgakov, “General relativity tests by the dynamics of the Solar system,” inProceedi...

2015
[2008]

Gravitomagnetism: From Einstein’s 1912 Paper to the Satellites LAGEOS and Gravity Probe B,

[5]H. Pﬁster, “Gravitomagnetism: From Einstein’s 1912 Paper to the Satellites LAGEOS and Gravity Probe B,” inRelativity and Gravitation, J. Biˇc´ak and T. Ledvinka, eds., vol. 157 of Springer Proceedings in Physics,, pp. 191–197. Springer,

1912
[2010]

High precision methods for locating the celestial intermediate pole and origin,

[54]N. Capitaine and P. T. Wallace, “High precision methods for locating the celestial intermediate pole and origin,”Astron. Astrophys. 450 (2006) 855–872. [55]O. Montenbruck and E. Gill, Satellite Orbits. Spinger-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg,

2006
[2011]

Testing General Relativity with Juno at Jupiter,

10 L. Iorio [32]D. Durante, P. Cappuccio, I. di Stefano, et al., “Testing General Relativity with Juno at Jupiter,”Astrophys. J. 971 (2024)

2024
[2013]

Petit and B

[53]G. Petit and B. Luzum, eds., IERS Conventions (2010), vol. 36 of IERS Technical Note. Verlag des Bundesamts f ¨ur Kartographie und Geod¨asie, Frankfurt am Main,

2010
[2014]

LAGEOS Scientiﬁc results: Introduction,

[6]S. C. Cohen and D. E. Smith, “LAGEOS Scientiﬁc results: Introduction,”J. Geophys. Res. 90 (1985) 9217–9220. [7]J. M. Bardeen and J. A. Petterson, “The Lense–Thirring Eﬀect and Accretion Disks around Kerr Black Holes,”Astrophys. J. Lett. 195 (1975) L65. [8]M. J. Rees, “Relat...

1985 arXiv
[2024]

Studying the Properties of Spacetime with an Improved Dynamical Model of the Inner Solar System,

[29]D. Pavlov and I. Dolgakov, “Studying the Properties of Spacetime with an Improved Dynamical Model of the Inner Solar System,”Universe 10 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

¨Uber den Einﬂuß der Eigenrotation der Zentralk ¨orper auf die Bewegung der Planeten und Monde nach der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie,

[1]J. Lense and H. Thirring, “ ¨Uber den Einﬂuß der Eigenrotation der Zentralk ¨orper auf die Bewegung der Planeten und Monde nach der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie,”Phys. Z 19 (1918) 156–163. [2]B. Mashhoon, F. W. Hehl, and D. S. Theiss, “On the gravitational eﬀects of rotating masses: The Thirring–Lense papers.,”Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 16 (1984) 711–7...

work page 1918

[2] [10]

Phenomenology of the Lense-Thirring effect in the Solar System

[36]L. Iorio, H. I. M. Lichtenegger, M. L. Ruggiero, and C. Corda, “Phenomenology of the Lense–Thirring eﬀect in the solar system,”Astrophys. Space Sci. 331 (2011) 351–395, arXiv:1009.3225 [gr-qc] . [37]I. Ciufolini, A. Paolozzi, R. Koenig, et al., “Fundamental Physics and General Relativity with the LARES and LAGEOS satellites,”Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl....

work page Pith review arXiv 2011

[3] [87]

Limitations in Testing the Lense-Thirring Effect with LAGEOS and the Newly Launched Geodetic Satellite LARES 2

[50]L. Iorio, “Limitations in Testing the Lense–Thirring Eﬀect with LAGEOS and the Newly Launched Geodetic Satellite LARES 2,”Universe 9 (2023) 211, arXiv:2304.14649 [gr-qc] . [51]L. Iorio, “A new proposal for measuring the Lense-Thirring eﬀect with a pair of supplementary satellites in the gravitational ﬁeld of the Earth,” Phys. Lett. A 308 (2003) 81–84,...

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[4] [141]

A 1% Measurement of the Gravitomagnetic Field of the Earth with Laser–Tracked Satellites,

[40]D. M. Lucchesi, M. Visco, R. Peron, et al., “A 1% Measurement of the Gravitomagnetic Field of the Earth with Laser–Tracked Satellites,”Universe 6 (2020)

work page 2020

[5] [145]

Measurement of dragging of inertial frames and gravitomagnetic ﬁeld using laser–ranged satellites.,

[33]I. Ciufolini, D. M. Lucchesi, F. Vespe, and A. Mandiello, “Measurement of dragging of inertial frames and gravitomagnetic ﬁeld using laser–ranged satellites.,” Nuovo Cim. A 109A (1996) 575–590. [34]M. Pearlman, D. Arnold, M. Davis, et al., “Laser geodetic satellites: a high-accuracy scientiﬁc tool,”J. Geod. 93 (2019) 2181–2194. [35]D. Coulot, F. Deleﬂ...

work page 1996

[6] [413]

The Juno Mission,

[30]S. J. Bolton, J. Lunine, D. Stevenson, et al., “The Juno Mission,”Space Sci. Rev. 213 (2017) 5–37. [31]S. Finocchiaro, L. Iess, W. M. Folkner, and S. Asmar, “The Determination of Jupiter’s Angular Momentum from the Lense-Thirring Precession of the Juno Spacecraft,” inAGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, vol. 2011, pp. P41B–1620

work page 2017

[7] [1959]

Possible new experimental test of general relativity theory,

[22]L. Schiﬀ, “Possible new experimental test of general relativity theory,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 4 (1960) 215–217. [23]C. W. F. Everitt, D. B. Debra, B. W. Parkinson,et al., “Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 221101, arXiv:1105.3456 [gr-qc] . [24]C. W. F. Everitt, B. Muhlfelder, D. B. ...

arXiv 1960

[8] [1987]

Reassessment of the error modelling of non–gravitational perturbations on LAGEOS II and their impact in the Lense–Thirring determination. Part I,

[42]D. M. Lucchesi, “Reassessment of the error modelling of non–gravitational perturbations on LAGEOS II and their impact in the Lense–Thirring determination. Part I,”Planet. Space Sci. 49 (2001) 447–463. [43]D. M. Lucchesi, “Reassessment of the error modelling of non–gravitational perturbations on LAGEOS II and their impact in the Lense–Thirring derivati...

work page 2001