## Geodesic Deviation

Can someone take a look at

http://wps.aw.com/wps/media/objects/...ments/Ch21.pdf

and tell me how they go from Eq. (7) to Eq. (8)? I've tried this and keep getting additional terms.
 PhysOrg.com science news on PhysOrg.com >> Leading 3-D printer firms to merge in $403M deal (Update)>> LA to give every student an iPad;$30M order>> CIA faulted for choosing Amazon over IBM on cloud contract

 Originally posted by Arcon Can someone take a look at http://wps.aw.com/wps/media/objects/...ments/Ch21.pdf and tell me how they go from Eq. (7) to Eq. (8)? I've tried this and keep getting additional terms.
i took a look at it, and did the calculation. i thought it was pretty straightforward. where did you get stuck? what extra terms do you have?

remember that x is a geodesic. so there is a geodesic equation in x, and it therefore vanishes. and remember that &chi; is very small; drop any term with more than one &chi; in it.

 Originally posted by lethe i took a look at it, and did the calculation. i thought it was pretty straightforward. where did you get stuck? what extra terms do you have? remember that x is a geodesic. so there is a geodesic equation in x, and it therefore vanishes. and remember that χ is very small; drop any term with more than one χ in it.
I fingered it out [:)]

One has to drop not only the term &chi*&chi but the term which is the product of &chi and a derivative of &chi. That was what I was missing.

## Geodesic Deviation

Thank you

I believe that I've fingered it out [:)]

One has to drop not only the term &chi;*&chi; but the term which is the product of &chi; and a derivative of &chi;. That was what I was missing.

Again - thanks for the response

Arcon

 Originally posted by lethe i took a look at it, and did the calculation. i thought it was pretty straightforward. where did you get stuck? what extra terms do you have? remember that x is a geodesic. so there is a geodesic equation in x, and it therefore vanishes. and remember that χ is very small; drop any term with more than one χ in it.
Seems that this small detail (drop term with &chi;d&chi;dT) has always tripped me up in that derivation. I guess I was just blind to it. But now that I know it then the derivation is simple.

Just to make sure I understood the approximation can you check this for me?

http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor..._deviation.htm

I commented on the terms to drop right after Eq. (14) and right after Eq. (15)

Thanks

I don't know how I missed this before but the equation of geodesic deviation clearly shows that tidal forces are velocity dependant!

Arcon

 Similar discussions for: Geodesic Deviation Thread Forum Replies Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 6 Special & General Relativity 0 Differential Geometry 1 Special & General Relativity 18 Special & General Relativity 2