Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the phase velocity of light in a moving medium is used to predict the phase velocity of that light relative to a stationary observer then the Einstein low speed approximation to his velocity addition equation and the Fresnel drag equation both predict the exact same result. Therefore existing interference fringe shift experiments do not differentiate between the Fresnel and Einstein predictions. However, when the group velocity of light is used, the Fresnel prediction and the Einstein prediction are different. When Fresnel predictions based on group velocity are made for the proposed experiment, the difference in round trip arrival times for the two halves of a split laser pulse is substantial. When Einstein predictions based on group velocity are made the difference in round trip times is, of course, zero. Thus a positive result for the proposed experiment would violate Special Relativity Theory (SRT) with regards to the relativity of simultaneity and suggest that the Lorentz-Poincare’ physical viewpoint on the SRT equations is a better viewpoint. If the Einstein prediction for group velocity is not correct, then when positive data for the experiment configuration shown in Figure 1.0 is collected at various orientations at different times of the day it is possible to identify a local preferred reference frame in which the speed of light is actually (not just apparently) isotropic. This reference frame could be used in place of star reference frames for spacecraft navigation. Other implications of a local preferred reference frame are explained in the paper.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".