Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="1Body">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 <em>– </em>since a breakthrough in this field of physics and cosmology would otherwise surely have already taken place by now.</p><p class="1Body">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 <strong>DM consists of massive non-baryonic particles (so-called WIMPs, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles)</strong> hitherto completely unknown to us, which produce a non-baryonic, static gravitational field distributed throughout the entire cosmos.</p><p class="1Body">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 <strong>dark matter</strong>.</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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".