Archimedes’ Principle and the Concept of Gravitation
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
Simple experimental evidence shows that the current physical interpretation of the phenomenon of a solid material body floating on the surface of a liquid body - known as ‘Archimedes’ Principle’ - is not correct. As this interpretation is a consequence of the assumption that a volume of material, when immersed in a fluid, does not ‘lose’ its ‘weight’, what we believe of gravitational mechanical action is also not correct. A material volume immersed in a fluid is currently believed to be subjected to two mechanical actions, ‘gravitational mechanical action’ or ‘weight of the material volume’ and ‘Archimedes’ force’. This is not in fact correct: the material volume is subjected to only one mechanical action, proportional to volume and to the difference in density between the matter of the material volume and that of the fluid. We propose to call this mechanical action the ‘weight of the material volume in that fluid’, ceteris paribus. At the Earth’s surface, floating of a solid material volume B on the surface of a liquid volume is the result of the concurrent action of two ‘weights’, the ‘weight in air’ of the part of volume B which is immersed in air, directed downwards, and the ‘weight in the liquid’ of the part of volume B which is immersed in the liquid, directed upwards.
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 | 0.000 |
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