MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281658650 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-35.2.111

Observation of a star’s orbit based on the emission and propagation of light as mechanical phenomena

2022· article· en· W4281658650 on OpenAlex

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 · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHistory and Developments in Astronomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsObserver (physics)StarsOrbit (dynamics)AstrophysicsLight emissionLight curveStar (game theory)OpticsAstronomyLight sourceCircular orbitAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hypothesis that the velocity of light depends on the motion of the light source was rejected by astronomers’ observations of binary stars and by the result of the experiment performed at CERN, Geneva, in 1964. Opposingly, the study of the emission, propagation, and reflection of light as mechanical phenomena concludes that the velocity of light depends on the velocity of the light source. According to this study, the human eye sees the orbit of a star larger than its actual size, and the light from the star on the observed orbit travels to the observer’s eyes at the emitted velocity <mml:math display="inline"> <mml:mi>c</mml:mi> </mml:math> ; therefore, there are no time irregularities. This paper exposes visual irregularities predicted by the hypothesis that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the light source.

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 score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.206 · 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