Reply to “A comment on “A test of general relativity using the LARES and LAGEOS satellites and a GRACE Earth gravity model, by I. Ciufolini et al.””
Loading...
Author/Creator ORCID
Date
2018-10-30
Type of Work
Department
Program
Citation of Original Publication
Ciufolini, Ignazio; Pavlis, Erricos C.; Ries, John; Matzner, Richard; Koenig, Rolf; Paolozzi, Antonio; Sindoni, Giampiero; Gurzadyan, Vahe; Penrose, Roger; Paris, Claudio; Reply to “A comment on “A test of general relativity using the LARES and LAGEOS satellites and a GRACE Earth gravity model, by I. Ciufolini et al.””; The European Physical Journal C 78,880 (2018); https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6303-1
Rights
This item is likely protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. Unless on a Creative Commons license, for uses protected by Copyright Law, contact the copyright holder or the author.
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Abstract
In 2016, we published “A test of general relativity using the LARES and LAGEOS satellites and a GRACE Earth’s gravity model. Measurement of Earth’s dragging of inertial frames [1]”, a measurement of frame-dragging, a fundamental prediction of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, using the laser-ranged satellites LARES, LAGEOS and LAGEOS 2. The formal error, or precision, of our test was about 0.2% of frame-dragging, whereas the systematic error was estimated to be about 5%. In the 2017 paper “A comment on “A test of general relativity using the LARES and LAGEOS satellites and a GRACE Earth’s gravity model by I. Ciufolini et al.”” by L. Iorio [2] (called I2017 in the following), it was incorrectly claimed that, when comparing different Earth’s gravity field models, the systematic error in our test due to the Earth’s even zonal harmonics of degree 6, 8, 10 could be as large as 15%, 6% and 36%, respectively. Furthermore, I2017 contains other, also incorrect, claims about the number of necessary significant decimal digits of the coefficients used in our test (claimed to be nine), in order to eliminate the largest uncertainties in the even zonals of degree 2 and 4, and about the non-repeatability of our test. Here we analyze and rebut those claims in I2017.