Reply to the Comment by A.W. Thomas et al. on “The role of the orbital angular momentum in the proton spin”

The orbital angular momenta L^u and L^d of up- and down-quarks in the proton are estimated as functions of the energy scale as model independently as possible on the basis of Ji's angular-momentum sum rule. This analysis indicates that L ^u - L ^d is large and negative even at the low energy scale of nonperturbative QCD, in contrast to Thomas' similar analysis based on the refined cloudy bag model. We pursuit the origin of this apparent discrepancy and suggest that it may have a connection with the fundamental question of how to define quark orbital angular momenta in QCD.     

Reply to “A comment on “A test of general relativity using the LARES and LAGEOS satellites and a GRACE Earth gravity model,by I. Ciufolini et al.””

In 2016, we published “A test of general relativity using the LARES and LAGEOS satellites and a GRACE Earth’s gravity model. Measurement of Earth’s dragging of inertial frames [1]”, a measurement of frame-dragging, a fundamental prediction of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, using the laser-ranged satellites LARES, LAGEOS and LAGEOS 2. The formal error, or precision, of our test was about 0.2% of frame-dragging, whereas the systematic error was estimated to be about 5%. In the 2017 paper “A comment on “A test of general relativity using the LARES and LAGEOS satellites and a GRACE Earth’s gravity model by I. Ciufolini et al.”” by L. Iorio [2] (called I2017 in the following), it was incorrectly claimed that, when comparing different Earth’s gravity field models, the systematic error in our test due to the Earth’s even zonal harmonics of degree 6, 8, 10 could be as large as 15%, 6% and 36%, respectively. Furthermore, I2017 contains other, also incorrect, claims about the number of necessary significant decimal digits of the coefficients used in our test (claimed to be nine), in order to eliminate the largest uncertainties in the even zonals of degree 2 and 4, and about the non-repeatability of our test. Here we analyze and rebut those claims in I2017.     

Reply to the Comment by F. Kožíšek et al. on “Evidence for the existence of stable-water-clusters at room temperature and normal pressure” [Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 3872]

After discussing various points raised in a recent comment by F. Ko?íšek et al., who claim that our Letter “Evidence for the existence of stable-water-clusters at room temperature and normal pressure” (Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 3872) is unclear and the evidence is scant, we conclude that their arguments are wrong.     

Reply to the comments of M.E. Golmakani and J. Rezatalab,Comment on “Nonlocal third-order shear deformation plate theory with application to bending and vibration of plates” (by R. Aghababaei and J.N. Reddy,Journal of Sound and Vibration 326 (2009) 277–289), Journal of Sound Vibration, 333 (2014) 3831–3835

Golmakani and Rezatalab [1] suggested in their paper that the deflection of a simply supported nonlocal elastic plate under uniform load is not affected by the small length scale terms. They based their proof on the use of Navier?s method using a sinusoidal-based deflection solution. This insensitivity of the deflection solution of a simply supported nonlocal elastic plate with respect to the small length terms of Eringen?s model is not correct, as already detailed in the literature (for example, see [2] for beam problems). In fact, the deflection of the nonlocal plate (in the Eringen sense) is larger than the one of the local case, as shown in many papers available in the literature. We prove in this reply to the authors that the Navier?s method has to be correctly applied for highlighting the specific sensitivity phenomenon of the deflection solution, as compared to exact analytical solution.