Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is shown that 100-year-old, conflicting ideas on the positive or negative energy of the gravity field collide with the principle of local conservation of energy. A scrutiny of the Schwarzschild metric, carried out with a different method than that applied by E. Schrödinger but completed with a similar result, reconfirms that the gravity field holds no energy at all, with that recognition being tacitly acknowledged by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler in 1973. Given that it does not hold any energy, it cannot, by definition, be qualified as a force-field. Given that it is not a force-field, it is capable of being completely transformed away even in the rigid reference-frame of a distant observer outside of the field. Contrary to what (early) Einstein believed, this can (and must) be achieved by the concept of “flowing spaces” that was introduced by elder Einstein himself in 1952. It is shown that this concept leads to empirical consequences. Moreover, the energy of the gravity field is necessarily replaced by an inexhaustible “dark energy,” which flows into any massive object (including Newton’s apple) whenever, after a free fall, it is being decelerated. Thereby Schrödinger’s vision of “new foundations” of the energy conservation principle (as a consequence of his recognition that the gravity field holds no energy) is coming true. Because of the absence of any gravitational field lines that originate from that energy, the (main) seat of this dark energy cannot be in three-dimensional space, but must sit at a location separated from ordinary space by a short distance in a direction perpendicular to all three ordinary spatial directions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".