MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616765832 · doi:10.5539/apr.v9n5p90

An Alternative Theory on the Spacetime of Non-inertial Reference Frame

2017· article· en· W2616765832 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gordon Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRelativity and Gravitational Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpacetimeFrame of referenceReference framePhysicsInertial frame of referenceClassical mechanicsMaxwell's equations in curved spacetimeGravitationFrame (networking)Computer scienceMathematics of general relativityQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In present paper, we have proposed an alternative theory on the spacetime of non-inertial reference frame (NRF) which bases on the requirement of general completeness (RGC) and the principle of equality of all reference frames (PERF). The RGC is that the physical equations used to describe the dynamics of matter and/or fields should include the descriptions that not only the matter and/or fields are at rest, but also they move relative to this reference frame, and the structure of the spacetime of reference frame has been considered. The PERF is that any reference frame can be used to describe the motion of matter and/or fields. The spacetime of NRF is inhomogeneous and deformed caused by the accelerating motion of the reference frame. The inertial force is the manifestation of deformed spacetime. The Riemann curvature tensor of the spacetime of NRF equals zero, but the Riemann-Christoffel symbol never vanishs no matter what coordinate system is selected in the NRF. The physical equations satisfied the RGC remain covariance under the coordinate transformation between the reference frames. Mach’s principle is incorrect. The problem of spacetime of NRF can be solved without considering gravitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics ResearchSame topicRelativity and Gravitational TheoryFrench-language works237,207