Abstract
Abstract It has been claimed in \cite{1}, that the idea proposed in \cite{2} has certain mistakes based on arguments of energy conditions and others. Additionally, some of the key arguments of the paper are criticized. Here we demonstrate that the results obtained in \cite{2} are correct and that there is no violation of any energy condition. The statements claimed in \cite{1} are based on three things: 1). Misinterpretation of the metric solution. 2). Language issues related to the physical quantities obtained in \cite{1}, where the authors make wrong interpretations about certain results over the geometry proposed in \cite{2}. 3). Non-rigorous evaluations of the vacuum condition defined via the result over the Ricci tensor $R_{\mu\nu}=0$.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
