MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040136219 · doi:10.5539/apr.v12n3p28

The Constant of the Universe Expansion Acceleration ΓH, the Einstein Variation of c and Parameters VH, Ω, Ʌ and ɣ

2020· article· en· W3040136219 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. G. Lartigue

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsHubble's lawMetric expansion of spaceMathematical physicsAccelerationGravitational constantGravitationGravitational accelerationGravitational fieldDeceleration parameterUniverseDark energyAstrophysicsClassical mechanicsCosmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics ResearchSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207