https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350617258_Gravitational_Fields_and_Gravitational_Waves Reviewer #4: The Author has written the article titled " Influence of Gravitational Waves on Planetary Orbits" which seems to me a good work, and acceptable for publication if the author responds to my following questions positively based on some general and specific observations: 1. How does the new dynamic gravitational equation differ from the existing gravitational equations? What are the assumptions and approximations made in the derivation of the equation, and what are their limitations? 2. What is the methodology used for the specific distribution analysis of gravitational waves around the sun? How accurate are the calculations of the gravitational wave effects on the orbits of the planets? What is the level of uncertainty associated with these calculations? 3. Can the author provide a detailed explanation of how the proposed dynamic gravitational equation can account for the observed deviations in the orbits of the planets? How does the equation handle the complex interactions between the planets, the sun, and the gravitational waves? 4. What is the level of confidence in the comparison between the calculated planetary orbit data using the dynamic gravitational equation and the NASA observation data? What are the sources of error or uncertainty in the comparison? 5. What are the implications of the proposed dynamic gravitational equation for future astronomical observations and planetary missions? Are there any testable predictions or experimental evidence that can validate or falsify the equation?
I also have more than 5 review comments for the publication of supporting papers in other physics journals. Some reviewer gave a high evaluation. Of course, there is no lack of review comments for rejection of manuscripts here. So I guess these reviewers are at least physics professors, my paper is not complicated, what is it that bothers them and makes them come to completely different conclusions? Academician Lee from China, he highly praised my thesis at the beginning. But when he couldn't win my support for his thesis, he was very angry. I just want to stick to the truth, even if it costs me the support of others. Professor Richard also declined to comment. As he said, there is a serious conflict of interest between my thesis and GR. It is said that the Chinese are very smooth, which is true, but it obviously does not include me. It is said that Westerners are more willing to stick to the truth, but obviously they are more willing to maintain "some people's truth". Maybe money is the only truth in this world.
Do you regard the response above as a high evaluation? Probably because many reviewers recognised your work as pseudoscience. The response above says nothing about coming to different conclusions, or anything like that. It gives you some good advice about what you'd need to do to pull your work out of the pit of pseudoscience and try to move it in the direction of actual science. But you won't actually try to address any of the matters raised by this reviewer, will you? Somebody qualified was angry on your behalf? Why was he angry? Is he a personal friend of yours? From the conversations I've had with you, you're not even sure which "truth" you're trying to support. You were utterly incapable of even stating what claims you were making, on some topics. Something else you're going to continue to ignore? Some reasons for the rejection of your paper were given in the review you have quoted in this thread. None of them have anything to do with a refusal to accept your "truth".
These comments are a gentle way of telling you that your paper as written is no good, but without wanting to deter you from improving it. Notice the reviewer focuses on (1) the lack of observational evidence for your ideas and (2) the lack of predictions from your ideas to demonstrate they can successfully reproduce what we actually observe in the motion of celestial bodies. This lack of connection to observations is fatal.
Prof Richard will not have used the phrase “conflict of interest”. He will have said “conflict”, or something equivalent. The “of interest” bit will have been made up by you, to make it look as if there is some political conspiracy against your ideas. There isn’t. On the other thread, you have amply demonstrated you do not yet understand even SR. It is a safe bet you will have no clue whatsoever about how GR works. Without first understanding these, you are not in a good position to put forward rival hypotheses.
