MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1752500731 · doi:10.5539/apr.v7n6p56

Physics Essay: Six Baseless and Irrational Problems in Modern Cosmology

2015· article· en· W1752500731 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zifeng Li

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPhysicsCosmologyIrrational numberBig CrunchNon-standard cosmologyBig Bang (financial markets)UniverseTheoretical physicsBig RipDark energyMaterialismUltimate fate of the universeAstrophysicsPhysical cosmologyMetric expansion of spaceDe Sitter universeEpistemologySteady State theoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="1Body">Analyzes the Big Bang theory, recession of galaxies, Hubble's law, multi-dimensional space, curved space and black hole in modern cosmology and points out that these six theories are all baseless and irrational, contrary to classical science. Promotes the use of plain view of the universe - the materialist view of space–time-mass-energy to study the universe. The observations and understanding of the universe are very limited now. Cosmology should be realistic, not based on irrational models.</p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics ResearchSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207