167
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0
shares
    • Review: found
    Is Open Access

    Review of '<b>The Modification and Extension of the Equivalence Principle</b>'

    AUTHOR
    Bookmark
    3
    <b>The Modification and Extension of the Equivalence Principle</b>Crossref
    The article is only publishable if the author accepts the suggested modifications
    Average rating:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of importance:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of validity:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of completeness:
        Rated 2 of 5.
    Level of comprehensibility:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Competing interests:
    None

    Reviewed article

    • Record: found
    • Abstract: found
    • Article: found
    Is Open Access

    The Modification and Extension of the Equivalence Principle

    In this article, the strong equivalence principle is analyzed by the gravitational mechanism of etheric pressure, and the conclusion is drawn that an object at rest in a uniform gravitational field of a certain strength is equivalent to moving in a straight line in a uniform etheric space with a certain speed (not a certain acceleration). According to this gravitational mechanism, gravitational field is a scalar (energy) field, and gravity is caused by the asymmetric density distribution of space energy, resulting in the asymmetric etheric pressure on the object at rest in space. The experimental fact of equivalence between gravity fields and velocity (rather than acceleration) in terms of time dilation has proven the equivalence between uniform gravity fields and inertial systems with uniform motion. It further deduces that gravity fields are equivalent to velocity in terms of the increase in the inertial mass effect of objects, and gravity fields are equivalent to velocity in terms of the contraction effect of the electron orbit radius of atoms. The Ether (energy) field with a gradient of field strength generated by a fluid whose flow velocity decreases perpendicular to its motion is equivalent to the gravitational field with a gradient of field strength. Using these modified and extended equivalence principles, the author explains Newton's bucket experiment, the Casimir effect, and explains what reference system the flow rate of fluid in Bernoulli equation is relative to, and why the higher the flow rate is relative to the reference system, the lower the pressure.
      Bookmark

      Review information

      10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-PHYS.AFKNAG.v1.RFAPVW
      This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

      Physics
      Equivalence principle, strong equivalence principle, gravitational field, non-inertial system

      Review text

      I would like to express my gratitude for considering me as one of the reviewers of the paper mentioned above, here are my comments,

      Reviewer’s comments:

      The manuscript deals with the strong equivalence principle, the paper is well written, however, it’s not publishable in its actual form unless the following modification are done:

      1. The abstract is too long, it should be reduced to half of its actual size at least, it should only contain the main goals and results of the paper.
      2. The introduction is short and only contains 3 references, the author should add more references and the actual state-of-the art.
      3. The paper lacks some explanatory graphs/illustrations, the author is invited to add at least one figure and explain it in the text.
      4. In order to elucidate the strong equivalence principle, the author is invited to give a paragraph explaining it in order to enhance the clarity for a broader audience.
      5. In page 4, paragraph 4, one cannot just predict, if possible, add some equations, results, evidence, graphs, any type of evidence is important and primordial.
      6. The previous remark goes for the next paragraphs when needed.
      7. The paper feels more pop science rather than real solid science, this dur to the lack of consistent evidence, if the author added the mentioned modification, it could be publishable after another review.
      8. The author is invited to check the language again.

      Best regards,

      Comments

      Many thanks to the reviewer for reviewing this article. The author will improve the article according to the reviewer's review comments.

      2024-02-01 23:02 UTC
      +1

      Comment on this review