Cognitive bias in physics, with respect to Einstein’s relativity, is demonstrated by the famous experiment of Pound and Rebka (1960), which in reality refutes Einstein’s general relativity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Einstein’s general relativity postulates that, at each positon within a gravitational field, we must measure the same frequency f 0, but seen from a distance, the frequency at the position of another gravitational potential is different from f 0. As gravity decreases with the increase in the distance from Earth, in the Pound‐Rebka experiment at the top of the tower, the frequency of electromagnetic radiation must be higher than at the bottom. If electromagnetic radiation was able to have the same frequency f 0 at the top of the tower as at the bottom of the tower, an observer at the top of the tower would have to be able to increase gravity to the same level that gravity has at the bottom. But the decrease in gravity with an increase in the altitude cannot be reversed. It is demonstrated that the relativistic interpretation of the Pound‐Rekba experiment showing a doubling of the gravitational frequency shift for “two-way” observations violates the principle of energy conservation, whereas the classical interpretation of the experiment identifies the doubling of the gravitational frequency shift as a pure mathematical effect that has no physical reality, which always occurs when we subtract relative differences with opposite algebraic signs from each other. It is shown that Einstein’s general relativity only seemingly corresponds with reality; thus, gravitational frequency (time) shifts must be interpreted according to classical considerations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".