Law of physics 20th-century scientists overlooked. I. The velocity differential propagation of light
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theorists of the 20th century had failed to recognize the law governing the prolonged interaction between electromagnetic radiation and gravity gradients—they had overlooked the principle of velocity differential propagation (the Principle). Historical background is provided and includes the bafflement surrounding the discovery of the cosmic redshift and its interpretation. The Principle is presented. Its application to gravity wells reveals that light waves traversing the external portion of a gravity well will intrinsically lose energy. The energy loss occurs during the inbound propagation AND during the outbound propagation. In other words, light undergoes redshifting throughout the entire journey. Three proofs are detailed. Observational evidence (several examples) is presented. Highlights are given of the momentous misinterpretation that could have been avoided if only there had emerged cognizance of the Principle. Examined is the question, How could it have happened that scientists missed the Principle? The implications for cosmology are profound.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".