Terrestrial and Lunar Gravitational Forces upon the Mass of a Cell: Relevance to Cell Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gravitational force between the mass of an average mammalian cell and the earth is in the order of a picoNewton. When applied across the plasma membrane the energy is within the domain of 10-20 J that is associated with the distance between forces of ions that are correlated with the membrane potential. Solutions for velocity and acceleration are congruent with known properties of the ion channel and cell membrane. The differences in gravitational forces between lunar perigee and apogee are within the 10-20 J range when applied across distances that constitute neuronal processes. Calculations of the ratio of gravitational force to a specific range of intensities of rotating experimental magnetic fields produce equivalent electric dipole moments (A∙m) that are within the same order of magnitude as that measured for single post-synaptic potentials. These values match the energies associated with pressures within the cell volume according to Borowski’s gravitational theory. The solutions may explain a robust behavioral effect reported over 40 years ago that indicated a powerful interaction between forces associated with lunar distances at the birth of rats exposed prenatally to rotating magnetic fields. Although the energies may be small the contributions from subtle changes in gravitational forces are within the operative range for those that influence cell function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".