MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772897160 · doi:10.5539/apr.v9n6p67

Dilation of Time Dilation

2017· article· en· W2772897160 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tadeusz Wajda

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRelativity and Gravitational Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTime dilationPhysicsMichelson interferometerLength contractionOpticsSpeed of light (cellular automaton)Measure (data warehouse)InterferometryLorentz transformationTheory of relativityClassical mechanicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study addresses the issue of the so-called time dilation in the sense of the origin of its creation and the physical existence.Based on the work of Lorentz, who the lack of displacement of interference fringes in the Michelson interferometer explained wrongly with, shortening one arm of the interferometer, I propose the construction of the light pulse clock, in which to measure the rate of the passage of time is used constancy speed of light in vacuum.Light clock, the construction of which is described in the paper, stationary in relation to the ether, will measure constant time intervals. The same clock transported, will slow down the pace of his walk as a function of transportation speed v and that is a novelty, will slow depending on its orientation relative to the direction of motion. Light clock transported transversely with respect to the stationary clock will slow gamma times, transported lengthwise will slow gamma to the second power.Basing on the obtained dependences I maintain that time dilation defined in the theory of relativity (SR) as the slowing of the lapse of time, does not physically exist and identification the varying pace of walk clock with the pace of lapse of time I consider a fundamental error resulting from the postulates of this theory.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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