Is dark matter and black hole cosmology an effect of Born’s reciprocal relativity theory?
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
Born’s reciprocal relativity theory (BRRT), based on a maximal proper-force, maximal speed of light, and inertial and non-inertial observers, is re-examined in full detail. Relativity of locality and chronology are natural consequences of this theory, even in flat phase space. The advantage of BRRT is that Lorentz invariance is preserved and there is no need to introduce Hopf algebraic deformations of the Poincaré algebra, de Sitter algebra, nor non-commutative space–times. After a detailed study of the notion of generalized force, momentum, and mass in phase space, we explain that what one may interpret as “dark matter” in galaxies, for example, is just an effect of observing ordinary galactic matter in different accelerating frames of reference than ours. Explicit calculations are provided that explain these novel relativistic effects due to the accelerated expansion of the Universe, and which may generate the present-day density parameter value Ω DM ∼ 0.25 of dark matter. The physical origins behind the numerical coincidences in black hole cosmology are also explored. We finalize with a rigorous study of the curved geometry of (co)tangent bundles (phase space) within the formalism of Finsler geometry, and provide a short discussion on Hamilton spaces.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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