MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206298076 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-34.4.486

In a holistic perspective, time is absolute and relativity a direct consequence of the conservation of total energy

2021· article· en· W4206298076 on OpenAlex
Tuomo Suntola

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheory of relativityPhysicsClassical mechanicsRest frameOne-way speed of lightReference frameFrame of referenceSpecial relativityRelativistic mechanicsDoubly special relativityLorentz transformationFour-forceConservation of energyTheoretical physicsGravitationKinematicsPrinciple of relativityQuantum mechanicsFrame (networking)Computer scienceGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are taught to think that the description of relativistic phenomena requires distorted time and distance. The message of this essay is that, in a holistic perspective, time and distance are universal coordinate quantities, and relativity is a direct consequence of the conservation of energy. Instead of the kinematics/metrics-based approach of the theory of relativity, the dynamic universe (DU) approach starts from the dynamics of space as a whole and expresses relativity in terms of locally available energy instead of locally distorted time and distance. In such an approach, e.g., the frequency of atomic clocks at different states of motion and gravitation is obtained from the quantum mechanical solution of the characteristic frequencies, and the unique status of the velocity of light becomes understood via its linkage to the rest of space. In the kinematic/metrics-based theory of relativity, we postulate the principle of relativity, Lorentz covariance, the equivalence principle, the constancy of the speed of light, and the rest energy of mass objects. The conservation of momentum and energy is honored in local frames of reference, and time and distance are parameters in frame-to-frame observations. In the dynamics-based DU, the whole space is studied as a closed energy system and the energy in local structures is derived conserving the overall energy balance. Any local state of motion and gravitation in space is related, through a system of nested energy frames, to the state of rest in hypothetical homogeneous space, which serves as the universal frame of reference. Relativity of observations appears as a direct consequence of the overall energy balance and the linkage of local to the whole—with time and distance as universal coordinate quantities. DU postulates spherically closed space and zero-energy balance of motion and gravitation. DU does not need the relativity principle or any other postulates of the theory of relativity. Primarily, the theory of relativity is an empirically driven mathematical description of observations, with postulates formulated to support the mathematics. DU relies on mathematics built on the conservation of an overall zero-energy balance as the primary law of nature, which makes DU more like a metaphysically driven theory. Both approaches produce precise predictions. The choice is philosophical—nature is not dependent on the way we describe it.

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.

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 score0.200

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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