Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current physical interpretation of the phenomenon of floating of a body on the surface of a liquid - the so-called ’Archimedes’ Principle’ - is not correct. It is based on a assumption which is false, because it leads to contradict observed facts. A different physical interpretation is the correct interpretation, which is equivalent to the current one from the quantitative viewpoint, but significantly different from the physical viewpoint. When a volume of matter – a body - is immersed in a fluid, it 'loses' its own weight, i.e., it is no longer home to the downward-directed mechanical action of which the volume is home when it is immersed in a vacuum. Therefore, a material volume immersed in a fluid does not host two mechanical actions - the 'weight' of the volume itself, directed downwards, and the 'Archimedes' force', directed upwards – but a single mechanical action. The intensity of this action is proportional to the volume of the body and to the difference in density between the matter which constitutes the body and the matter which constitutes the fluid. The direction of this action is related to the sign of the difference between the two values of density, reversing as the sign changes from positive to negative and vice-versa. Since the intensity of this mechanical action is proportional to the difference in density between the matter which constitutes the body and the matter which constitutes the fluid, there is no mechanical action – i.e., the mechanical action ceases – if there is equilibrium in density between the matter of the body and the matter of the fluid. This indicates that the main cause of this mechanical action is a physical disequilibrium between the matter which constitutes the body and the matter which constitutes the fluid, i.e., a physical disequilibrium/relationship between matter which is in contact.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".