Related papers: Comments on Backreaction

We respond to invalid criticism in the recent Comment by Schneider et al. [arXiv:1407.4127v1]

In this brief WEB note we comment on recent papers related to our paper "On Acceleration Without Dark Energy".

We provide our reply to the comment by Greiter and Schuricht (cond-mat/0511607).

Response to Comment by A. Bussmann-Holder (arXiv:0909.3603)

As a coauthor of the article mentioned in the title, I discuss the criticism in the comment of Aalseth et al. Part of the criticism is justified.

We respond to the criticism raised in the paper arXiv:1704.07831.

In this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].

A recent Comment [arXiv:0811.2790] on the Letter 'Quantum Bounce and Cosmic Recall' by the authors is shown to arise from an incorrect understanding of the issues at hand and of our analysis. The conclusions of Bojowald's Comment are shown…

We respond to comments in arXiv:2502.15817v2 about our article, arXiv:2412.12282. We stand by our conclusions and defend them against the criticisms.

We reply to the comment by Ying Zhang and S. Das Sarma on our PRL 94, 226405 (2005).

In this manuscript we reply to the criticisms of our paper [Eur. Phys. J. A 24, 437 (2005)] raised in a recent preprint by Achasov and Kiselev [hep-ph/0606268] and demonstrate that all their criticisms are completely irrelevant and…

We offer a brief response to the criticisms put forward by Cusin et al in arXiv:1811.03582 about our work arXiv:1810.13435 and arXiv:1806.01718, emphasising that none of these criticisms are relevant to our main results.

The recent paper nucl-th/0012037 by Moretto et al. is commented

Brief response to a Reply [arXiv:1005.2615] on our Comments [arXiv:1005.0838] on XENON100 recent results [arXiv:1005.0380].

We have reviewed the comment in [3], posted on arXiv.org concerning our recent work in [1]. We reply to the comment in this paper.

Statements included in the comment published by Schumann et al. (arXiv:1904.03023v1) are contradicted by documents that were communicated to one of the co-authors of the comment (Dr. Koester). These documents are reviewed but cannot be…

It is demonstrated that remarks and criticism in work [1] (arXiv:1005.2436 nucl-th) have resulted from inattentive reading of work [2] (Phys. Rev.C 81, 035501 (2010)) or just some misunderstanding and do not influence conclusions of work…

This is our response to the comment arXiv:2504.13683 posted by Chat\'e and Solon in reference to our preprint arXiv:2503.17064

Here we reply to the comment by A. F. Volkov, F. S. Bergeret, and K. B. Efetov.

Clement and Noiucer submitted a note {\tt arXiv:2401.16008 [gr-qc]} replying to our criticism {\tt arXiv:2401.10479 [gr-qc]} of their previous submission. We reply to the contents of this note and remark that these authors have not…