相关论文: Comments on Dragging Effects

This is the reply given at the conference ``Mach's Principle" at T\"ubingen in July 1993 to the paper by Isenberg (1993a). Unfortunately the Isenberg paper itself was not submitted to gr-qc.

Machs principle and the principle of relativity have been discussed by H. I. Hartman and C. Nissim-Sabat in this journal. Several phenomena were said to violate the principle of relativity as applied to rotating motion. These claims have…

This reply addresses concerns expressed in a comment (arXiv:2508.16689v1) on arXiv:submit/6841332 [physics.gen-ph] 29 Sep 2025 the paper given in the title (arXiv:2501.02022v2), hereafter referred to as the paper.

The effect of the frame dragging on the equation of motions, depends on the approaches that have been considered. Accordingly, additional force terms may appear or disappear. To understand the effect of radial and non-radial perturbations…

We respond to a recent paper by Rindler on the ``Anti--Machian'' nature of the Lense--Thirring effect. We remark that his conclusion depends crucially on the particular formulation of Mach's principle used.

Detailed discussion of university textbook statements (Harwit 1988) concerning the Poynting-Robertson effect (P-R effect) is presented. Discussion is concentrated on better physical understanding of the P-R effect. References to complete…

This paper had been withdrawn because the prime reported effect had not been confirmed in further investigations (see arXiv:0812.4488 [hep-lat]).

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…

In the Comment [Eur. J. Phys., to be published] on our paper [Eur. J. Phys. 19 (1998) 1-6], the author declares that we claim that the ratio of inertial mass to gravitational mass can be derived ex nihilo and that our paper was published…

Invited talk presented at the Workshop on Quantum Field Theoretical Aspects of High Energy Physics, Kyffh\"auser, Germany, September 20-24, 1993; to be published in the Proceedings.

In the recent work [1], authors discussed the relationship between the two of Euler angles assuming that it can be used to describe some effects in the theory of a rigid body. I show that this assumption is not properly justified.

We show that the comment [cond-mat/0408217] by Continentino on our recent paper [PRL 91, 066404 (2003), cond-mat/0212335] reaches incorrect conclusions as the comment wrongly extrapolates from results valid close to a classical phase…

This paper, which was concerned with a field-theoretic analysis of the PCPD by means of the renormalization group, has been withdrawn by the authors. We had found a nontrivial RG fixed point, but could not exclude the possibility that it…

We have reviewed the Comment of Geyer et al. [arXiv:0708.1548] concerning our recent work [Phys. Rev. A 75, 060102 (R) (2007)], and while we disagree with their criticisms, we acknowledge them for giving us the opportunity to add…

As Lanzagorta and Crowder have shown in their Comment [Phys. Rev. A 96, 026101 (2017)], the linear application of the Wigner rotations to the quantum state of two massive relativistic particles does not entail the instantaneous transmission…

In their Comment, Greer et al (i) put us in charge of a pretended wrong claim, which we never made in Phys.~Rev.~B {\bf 78}, 115315 (2008), where we criticized a method (DG)proposed by two of them, (ii) incorrectly claim that the DG method…

In a recent letter [PRL 95, 140601 (2005)], P. Grassberger addresses the very interesting issue of the applicability of q-statistics to the renowned Feigenbaum attractor. However several points are not in line with our current knowledge,…

In the paper "The relativistic Doppler effect: when a zero-frequency shift or a red shift exists for sources approaching the observer, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 523, No. 3, 239-246 (2011), DOI 10.1002/andp.201000099 by C. Wang the use of an…

We reply to a recent comment by Bhattacharya et. al. (cond-mat/9812290) on our previous Letter (PRL 81, 5640 (1998)).

Reply to ``Comment on [Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 630 (1998)]''