The Constant of the Universe Expansion Acceleration ΓH, the Einstein Variation of c and Parameters VH, Ω, Ʌ and ɣ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Hubble-Lemaitre equation v=H∙r (cm∙s-1) represented a linear function of the radial Space expansion velocity, if H would be a constant. Sometimes it has been assumed as H = 1/t, which sends back to the classical v = r/t. However, the later discovered acceleration required the additional condition for H to be, also, a function of time; or, opposed, the existence of a not yet defined dark energy. In a previous paper [1] it had been proposed a provisional expression for a constant Universe expansion acceleration as function of distance: Γ= H2( cm∙s-2). Now, the substitution of r as a function of time, takes to five new equations of H, the Hubble velocity vH , the Hubble acceleration ΓH and the positive Hubble potential VH of the Space. So the proposed Hubble functions for the Space: H, rH , vH, ΓH and VH result higher than those in a gravitational field. All of these Hubble functions act in the total Space expansion though, into the Physical Universe, ΓH is not perceived as it does, continuously, the opposed gravitational acceleration g. Otherwise, a revision is made of the Einstein equation for the c value as function of the gravitational potential φ. Additional proposals are made about the horizons definitions and parameters Ω, Ʌ and ɣ.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.008 |
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".