Bibliographic record
Abstract
When physicists write the variable v, they usually mean the velocity of an object in an inertial coordinate system, otherwise known as a reference frame. This is the most common velocity concept in modern physics. The velocity of an object in this sense depends on which inertial coordinate system one is working with. For example, an airplane in flight has a velocity of about 500 miles per hour in a coordinate system anchored in a nearby mountain, a velocity of more than 60 000 miles per hour in a coordinate system anchored in the sun, and a velocity of 0 in a coordinate system anchored in the airplane itself. The widely accepted idea that the ticking rate of a clock is a function of this type of clock velocity is absurd. It implies that a human analyst can control the ticking rates of physical clocks through the mental act of selecting a coordinate system. This is a nonsensical mingling of imagination with reality that is akin to believing that a movie character can jump out of your television set and take a seat in your living room. Despite this absurdity, the idea that a clock’s ticking rate depends on its velocity in an inertial coordinate system is a staple of modern physics. It is a pillar of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. It is central to the standard analysis of the so-called twin paradox. It underlies the predictions of Hafele and Keating concerning the ticking rates of clocks that travel in airplanes. Velocity absurdity of this sort flourishes today, and it may well continue to flourish for many years to come.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".