  The Comment of M. Partanen and J. Tulkki [Phys. Rev. A {\bf 100}, 017801
(2019)] claims that my criticism expressed in Phys. Rev. A {\bf 98}, 043847
(2018) of the earlier paper of Partanen {\it et al.} [Phys. Rev. A {\bf 95},
063850 (2017)] was incorrect. There are essentially three points involved here:
(1) the first one regards the physical interpretation of the radiation pressure
experiment of A. Kundu {\it et al.} [Sci. Rep. {\bf 7}, 42538 (2017)]. My
mathematical analysis of this situation, although simple, was able to
illustrate the main property of the experiment, namely that it showed the
action from the radiation forces on the dielectric boundaries, and from the
Lorentz force in the interior, but it had not any relationship to the
Abraham-Minkowski momentum problem as was originally stated by the
investigators. (2) The second point was my emphasis on the fact that in an
electromagnetic pulse in a medium there cannot be an accompanying mechanical
energy density of the same order of magnitude as the electromagnetic energy
density itself. The electromagnetic wave carries with it a mechanical {\it
momentum}, but not a mechanical {\it energy}. Here I illustrate this point by a
simple numerical analysis. (3) When going to a relativistic formulation of the
electromagnetic theory in matter, care must be taken to secure that fundamental
conditions from field theory are satisfied. In particular, one cannot in
general take the electromagnetic total energy and momentum of a radiation pulse
to constitute a four-vector; such a property holds only if the electromagnetic
energy-momentum tensor is divergence-free. For the Minkowski tensor this
condition is satisfied, whereas for the Abraham tensor it is not.
