Faster than Light: Again on the Lorentz Transformations
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
<p class="1Body">The Lorentz transformations can be considered, without any doubt whatsoever, as the backbone of the theory of Special Relativity. Nonetheless, both the conventional derivation of the transformations and the meaning commonly assigned to them have been often savagely criticized, to the extent that, despite an alleged empirical evidence, the whole Special Relativity, in several occasions, has been brought into question. This paper is finalized to more thoroughly discuss a line of reasoning, elsewhere used in order to carry out an alternative deduction of the mass – energy equivalence, that may lead, amongst other things, towards the assignment of a new meaning to the Lorentz transformations, without any loss of formal validity. The transformations can be alternatively deduced once assumed some noteworthy hypotheses concerning our Universe, among which the existence of at least a further spatial dimension stands out. It is fundamental to underline that time is supposed as being absolute.</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.
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 | 0.002 |
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 it