Emission, propagation, and reflection of light as mechanical phenomena in inertial frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The kinematics of balls with mass in the inertial frames is like that in the frame at absolute rest. Practical examples of balls with mass studied at the limit when their mass is zero indicate that the kinematics of massless balls is like that of balls with mass. Light as a wave or particle is a massless entity. Therefore, it is natural to apply the kinematics behavior of the massless balls to light in its interactions with matter during the phenomena of emission and reflection. Thus, the kinematics of light depends on its kinetics of electromagnetic nature and by its mechanical interactions of emission and reflection with the matter. Light behaves in the inertial frames like in the frame at absolute rest, and the speed of light is the constant c in the inertial frames in which the source and mirror are at rest. The terrestrial experiments with light cannot prove the motion of Earth. This study explains the result of the experiment performed at CERN, Geneva, in 1964. Including the massless balls within Newtonian mechanics, the emission, propagation, and reflection of light can be considered mechanical phenomena.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".