| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics - Research Forum » Referee report on "Newtonian limit difficulties of...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Juan R.... |
 Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I have submitted a draft of my work to top journal on General Relativity
The draft has been rejected (i waited it  ) in basis to the claim
Quote: I find the manuscript extremely poorly written and highly confusing.
Several of the derivations of the author are simply wrong.
I agree that draft was poorly written. It was a second draft of my work
and it was 18 pages long and i just waited extra feedback and criticism to
add to that from Baryshev, Yurij; Christian, Joy; Google Scholar Team;
Poisson, Eric; van Flandern, Tom; Charles Francis; Carlip, Steve.
For instance i had several useful feedback regarding General Relativity
and equations of motion from expertise on equations of motion Eric
Poisson, but he has kindly refused any debate regarding the novel part on
dual potentials (this is explained below).
Now i am working in a third version which is 46 pages long and contains
one new section, several changes, and many improvements in the mathematics
and the presentation of the material.
I am addressing several technical comments from referee, showing some
mistakes that referee is doing and revealing that recent literature by
other researchers supports my conclusions.
However, even when rejecting the publication of the second draft (i am now
preparing third draft, introducing referee comments and preparing a
response to referee), the referee has already confirmed some points from
mine contradicting usual General Relativity literature.
I introduce some of their comments below.
For example, i maintain that General Relativity does not reduce to Newton
theory in /any/ limit and maintain that statements as Wald 1984 in its
page 78:
(\blockquote
Above, we showed that general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity
)
are not strictly true. Referee says:
Quote: Strictly speaking, Newton's theory is not contained in GR
Therefore we agree here. Another example where i disagree with
conventional literature is when Carroll 1997 'derives' the equation of
motion (4.19) and adds
(\blockquote
This begins to look a great deal like Newton's theory of
gravitation. In fact, if we compare this equation to (4.4), we find that
they are the same once we identify [h_00 = -2 \phi]
)
but Carroll equation (4.29) with metric coefficient h_00 substituted, i.e
[Moderator's note: Rest of post appears missing. Try to submit your
posts in straight plain printable 7-bit ASCII with no fancy stuff. -P.H.] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:37 pm
|
|