Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many decades now, intensive efforts have been undertaken by physicists and cosmologists around the world to investigate dark matter (DM), without noticeable success to date. This situation leads me to believe that one of the assumptions underlying the current doctrine in physics may well be erroneous or incomplete – since a breakthrough in this field of physics and cosmology would otherwise surely have already taken place by now. For this year (2015) and the following two years, the CERN Nuclear Research Centre has set itself the task of using the LHC (now upgraded to 13 TeV) to investigate the still completely mysterious phenomenon of dark matter. The researchers at CERN favour the assumption – shared by the majority of physicists and cosmologists – that DM consists of massive non-baryonic particles (so-called WIMPs, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) hitherto completely unknown to us, which produce a non-baryonic, static gravitational field distributed throughout the entire cosmos. I cast doubt on the above assumption that DM is massive in nature. As this paper will show, DM can be far better (and more simply) explained in terms of a non-massive gravitational derivate of those photons consumed in the expansion of cosmic space (by performing the work of expansion), those photons thereby being transformed into static physical quantities. This gravitational derivate creates a free gravitational field (decoupled from the other forces of nature) of non-baryonic, static nature, regionally varying in intensity, and this is known as dark matter.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".