Super-massive objects in Yarman–Arik–Kholmetskii (YARK) gravitation theory
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We continue to analyze the implications of the gravitational framework of our theoretical approach, christened YARK (abbreviated from Yarman–Arik–Kholmetskii), with respect to super-massive celestial bodies. We emphasize in particular that a gravitating test particle in the presence of a ponderable mass must adhere to the law of energy conservation, which remarkably does not yield any singularity according to YARK. Even so, for a given spherically shaped extremely compact super-massive body, one can achieve a theoretical radius below which “light” of, say, the visible frequency range can indeed be trapped. Yet, such a radius comes out to be tens of times shorter than the threshold radius for black hole formation as established by the general theory of relativity (GTR). In accordance with our derivations, the minimal mass for a celestial object capable of recapturing emitted light in its environs — similar to textbook “intermediate class black holes” — is found to be about 10 3 M S , where M S stands for the mass of the Sun. For less massive celestial objects, the crucial radius that produces a “YARK black hole” (i.e., without singularity) corresponds to a higher density than the density of a baryon; and hence, such entities cannot apparently exist in nature. Black holes allowed therefore in our approach are not related, in any case, to the singularity conceptualization of GTR. As a consequence, we are able to present a resolution to the “black hole information paradox”. The findings of YARK will be discussed hereinafter with regards to the foundations of observational cosmology.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it