Discussion on the referee’s report on the article on

Unified relativistic physics from a standing wave particle model".

Sent for publication in the Proceedings of the 6th Canadian Conference on General relativity and Astrophysics

Preprint gr-qc/9509014 (1995 b)

 

Referee I cannot recommend these papers for publication in their present form. They do not seem to be characterized by the scientific rigour that you mentioned to be a requirement in your covering letter; indeed they seem to be a sequence of unsubstantiated guesses made within a somewhat nebulous program for replacing Einstein's principle of equivalence -- one of the cornerstones of 20th century physics.   Author The systematic use of the word "seems" reveals that the referee is not sure of what he says. The referee is wrong because it is not true that I have replaced he Einstein’s principle of equivalence. On the contrary, my paper is based on just the Einstein’s Equivalence Principle (EEP) and other experimental evidences. There is nothing nebulous, nor any guess. On the contrary, I have replaced the traditional guesses (hypotheses) by experimental facts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Referee It would be necessary for the author to be more specific in his approach; for example the function w(r) must be defined more clearly.   Author The referee has not realized that w(i) was clearly defined in the first paragraphs of the section on G potential. (Remember that, for inertial and gravitational purposed, every particle of the universe can be emulated by photons in stationary states. Then, according to optical physics,  the universe  turns out to be a sea of wavelets that are interfering to each other, constructively at the sites of photons (and particles)   and destructively in the empty space between particles. Then the physical properties of the empty space are fixed by the average frequency at which the wavelets with random phases cross the space.  More precisely I have defined the function w(i) , called the actual perturbation rate (frequency) of the space at some position i compared with the perturbation rate of a universe with a uniform density. It has been defined as a quantity proportional to the sum of the products of the frequencies and amplitudes of all of the wavelets actually crossing such point. The explicit value is given in the second member of equation (10) in which the contributions of long distance objects are corrected for Doppler-shift.  K is the constant of proportionality.  The third member is obtained after multiplying and dividing the second member by h, after identifying K/h with the constant G. Such step is obvious from correspondence with current gravitation laws.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Referee Indeed the functions in (11) have not been defined at all. Even if this difficulty were overcome, I have no idea how (11) arises.   Author This is not true. They have been defined in the sentence previous to such equation. Anyway. From it, it is inferred that: Equation (11) is just a first order approximation of the second member of equation (10). Thus the constant term of such approximation can easily be identified with the homogeneous contribution of the long distance range distribution of matter in the universe, called w(U). According to the definition of w(i), w(U) = 1.  The variable term of such approximation, called here w(L), can be identified with the influence of the  in homogeneities produced by the rather “local” bodies.  This term, which has an extremely small value compared with 1, accounts for the rather local G field gradients. This approximation was done for the sake of explaining why the current G interactions are so weak.   However I must apologize for using, equation (11) and (12)., the sign “equal” instead of  “approximation” .  I did not notice it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions from the Referee’s report The referee’s report clearly shows that the referee did not fairly read the paper. This is obvious because He says that I have replaced the EEP, which is not true at all. On the contrary, my paper is based on such principle. He asks for definitions and explanations that are explicit in the article, no matter in that they are obvious. He frequently uses the words “it seems”, which obviously means that he is not sure of what he is saying. This can happen only if he has not read carefully the paper. Globally, from the general context of the referee’s report, it is obvious that the referee strongly believes in that GR is the last word. Thus he does not waste time for a fair reading of articles that disagree with GR. He closes the eyes for anything that may be different from his traditional beliefs.     I have found that this is a typical reaction of referees specialized in GR. This is likely to be one of the main reasons for which such theory has survived for so long time, regardless of the fact that it is not entirely consistent with all of the experimental facts.