GR is a Static Gravity Model

[Ssssssss]

the review comments made me feel that this reviewer lacks the most basic knowledge of physics.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Thanks man. I needed that.

The editor-in-chief of this SCI journal has accepted my appeal,

First reviewer - well, first reviewer - first reviewer said:
Zhil byl korol' kogda-to, Pri nem blokha zhila
("It stinks")
But second reviewer! Second reviewer said:
Ya idu kuda sam tsar' idet peshkom
("It stinks")

---Tom Lehrer (approximately)

 

[TonyYuan]

Today is a celebration day for GR supporters.

 

[Ssssssss]

I don't think you understand. I am not a "GR supporter" and neither is any other serious scientist. This isn't a football match. Scientists don't "support GR" but do favour accurate and coherent theories and for gravity that means GR.

I was laughing at your claim that the reviewer didn't understand basic physics which is hilarious coming from someone who doesn't appear to understand that there are important differences between powered and unpowered orbits. Your claims are ridiculous because your maths is utterly incoherent with the invalid approximations I pointed out and the incompetent use of units that the reviewer pointed out (it's equation 16 in the version of the paper linked in #56 that has \(e\) to the power of a unitful quantity BTW if anyone wants to look). And analysis of observation says that the reality agrees with GR anyway. It's kind of funny that you expect anyone to take your work seriously under those circumstances.

Is the "Professor Richard" you keep talking about Richard A Matzner? I wonder how he'd characterise your conversations. "You should try to get this published" can mean that he thinks your work is good but it's also a way of telling someone to go away and bother someone else with this nonsense without having to be so blunt.

 

[Ssssssss]

Deleted - double post.