English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In the subject paper [1] of the comment [2], light propagation through anabsolute gravimeter was analyzed, including the propagation delay through thefalling retroreflector and through the vacuum. The resulting expression for theinterference signal applies without any subsequent "speed-of-light" correction.Other corrections appeared for the three fitting parameters $Z_0,\ V_0$ and$g$, which are the initial position and velocity, and the acceleration ofgravity at the reference point. The comment assumes the value of $Z_0$ is knownapriori, this case was not addressed in [1]. Also, the comment misunderstandsstatements made in [1] regarding the derivation of therelativistic/nonrelativistic parts of the corrections (Eq. (47) of [1]), andmistakenly claims they apply to the undifferenced interference signal. In thisreply we show why, because of inapplicable assumptions, approximations andmisunderstandings, the comment does not apply to the results of [1]\,.

Reply to comment by S. Svitlov [2] on "Relativistic Theory of the falling cube gravimeter"