Related papers: Response to Cusin et al's comment on arXiv:1810.13…

This is a response to the commentaries on "CoRR: A Computing Research Repository".

The Comment by Xiong et al. (arXiv:1610.06275) criticizing my Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 133903 (2016)] was rejected by Physical Review Letters. In this Reply, I show that all their claims are wrong.

This is a short reply to arXiv:2112.00436v1 and arXiv:2111.09347v1 by C. Bracken, J.R. Hance, and S. Hossenfelder. I precise some elements concerning i) the methodology of my previous version of the comment [arXiv:2111.13357v3] to…

Here I explain why critics of my work [arXiv:1104.5314] in the above paper [arXiv:1306.5210] is inadequate.

The results in the recently posted manuscript arXiv:math/0405153v3 are incorrect. The correct version of the aimed results is not original. The preprint contains material from references that are not properly quoted.

This paper has been withdrawn. (Reason) Its contents have been entirely superseded by the contents of the articles arXiv:0809.3444 and arXiv:0705.3070. There is no profitable reason to keep it alive. No material on it is however wrong.

Withdrawn by arXiv administration because authors have forged affiliations and acknowledgements, and have not adequately responded to charges [hep-th/9912039] of unattributed use of verbatim material.

In this note we answer the two questions raised by Y.Y Li and L. Nguyen in their note [LN2] below.

This is our formal Reply to revised version (v2) of arXiv: nucl-th/0510004v2.

We explain why the objections raised by Golubev et al. in a comment on cond-mat/0111398 are not valid.

Withdrawn by arXiv administration because authors have forged affiliations and acknowledgements, and have not adequately responded to charges [hep-th/9912039] of unattributed use of verbatim material.

A reply to arXiv:0809.2310, "Comment on Universal Charge-Radius Relation for Subatomic and Astrophysical Compact Objects" [arXiv:0804.2140,PRL100(2008)151102]

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…

In addition, our work has text overlap with arXiv:1804.06242, arXiv:1705.00938 by other authors. We want to rewrite this paper for avoiding this fact.

This is a critique of cond-mat/9709195 . This paper is being submitted at this time for archiving purposes.

We discuss various relations between part of the results in arXiv:2103.05803v4 and recent author's results.

We make some comments about the results we obtained in Phys. Rev. Lett. 86,3392(2001), and in Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 177206 (2001), and show that the conclusion of a recent paper [cond-mat/0409495] leveling some criticism on our results is, in…

We briefly remind references and arguments, already discussed in the past, which confute erroneous claims in arXiv:1210.5501.

The main results of papers gr-qc/0307026 and gr-qc/0312068 are formulated. These results are opposite to conclusions of paper astro-ph/0305039 and comments gr-qc/0309036.

The authors of preprint arXiv:1810.00565 and paper in Light: Science & Applications (2019), Y. Dubi and Y. Sivan, made several wrong and inconsistent comments on several of our papers. In addition, the paper in Faraday Discuss. 214, 215-233…