Antigravity, an Answer to Nature’s Phenomena including the Expansion of the Universe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gravitational attraction force being proportional to the mass has been experimentally shown for several hundred years now, but no gravitational repulsion has been identified within the accepted scientific reasoning. Here, we show that the gravitational repulsion force, similar to the gravitational attraction among particles has also been in existence in nature but, yet to be recognized. The results of experiments are shown in detail and are discussed in the recent series of-publications. It is also shown here that this gravitational repulsion force is proportional to the temperature which is an indicator of thermal energy of the particle, similar to the gravitational attraction that is proportional to the mass of the particle. The situations where heavy particles such as iodine, tungsten, and thorium in vacuum move against gravitational force have already been shown qualitatively. The increase in time-of-fall of water droplets (slowing down of fall) with rise in temperature is also quantitatively discussed. This article discusses two major phenomena observable in nature, clouds and the expansion of universe, which could be more preciously explained by the concept of antigravity.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".