Newtonian quantum gravity and the derivation of the gravitational constant G and its fluctuations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theory of gravity “Newtonian quantum gravity” (NQG) is an ingeniously simple theory, because it precisely predicts so-called “general relativistic phenomena,” as, for example, that observed at the binary pulsar PSR B1913 + 16, by just applying Kepler’s second law on quantized gravitational fields. It is an irony of fate that the unsuspecting relativistic physicists still have to effort with the tensor calculations of an imaginary four-dimensional space-time. Everybody can understand that a mass that moves through space must meet more “gravitational quanta” emitted by a certain mass, if it moves faster than if it moves slower or rests against a certain mass, which must cause additional gravitational effects that must be added to the results of Newton's theory of gravity. However, today's physicists cannot recognize this because they are caught in Einstein's relativistic thinking and as general relativity can coincidentally also predict these quantum effects by a mathematically defined four-dimensional curvature of space-time. Advanced NQG is also able to derive the gravitational constant G and explains why G must fluctuate. The “string theory” tries to unify quantum physics with general relativity, but as the so-called “general relativistic” phenomena are quantum physical effects, it cannot be a realistic theory. The “energy wave theory” is lead to absurdity by the author.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".