Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relativity claims that the simultaneity between two (or more) observers, each traveling in different Inertial Reference Frames (IRFs) is such that for two spaceships moving through space at a high-speed relative to one another “inside the frame of reference of Ship A, everything is moving normally, but everything over on Ship B appears to be moving slower (and vice versa)”. However, as I will explain, this interpretation leads to an inconsistency which cannot be true. I point out the error being made in the interpretation of Minkowski diagrams that leads to this inconsistency, and how the diagram should be interpreted to correct this error. This paper demonstrates that a moving object’s rate of time is determined based on its speed relative to a stationary reference frame and that the light signals propagating between objects (from which observers can determine the other object’s rate of time) move at the speed of light c with respect to this stationary frame. If two objects are moving at the same speed through the stationary frame (but in different directions to each other) then they will have the same degree of time dilation and will thus have the same rate of time, despite the relative motion that exists between them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".