Bibliographic record
Abstract
Newtonian Quantum Gravity (NQG) unifies quantum physics with Newton's theory of gravity and calculates the so-called “general relativistic” phenomena more precisely and in a much simpler way than General Relativity, whose complicated theoretical construct is no longer needed. Newton's theory of gravity is less accurate than Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. Famous examples are the precise predictions of General Relativity at binary pulsars. This is the reason why relativistic physicists claim that there can be no doubt that Einstein's theory of relativity correctly describes our physical reality. With the example of the famous “Hulse-Taylor binary” (also known as PSR 1913 + 16 or PSR B1913 + 16), the author proves that the so-called “general relativistic phenomena” observed at this binary solar system can be calculated without having any knowledge on relativistic physics. According to philosophical and epistemological criteria, this should not be possible, if Einstein's theory of relativity indeed described our physical reality. Einstein obviously merely developed an alternative method to calculate these phenomena without quantum physics. The reason was that in those days quantum physics was not yet generally taken into account. It is not the first time that a lack of knowledge of the underlying physical phenomena has to be compensated by complicated mathematics. Einstein's theory of general relativity indirectly already includes additional quantum physical effects of gravitation. This is the reason why it cannot be possible to unite Einstein's theory of general relativity with quantum physics, unless one uses “mathematical tricks” that make the additional quantum physical effects disappear again in the end.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".