Contradiction in Einstein’s subjective explanation of the gravitational and kinematic time dilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Einstein’s special and general relativity are relics from before quantum physics. If forces are transmitted by quanta, this must also apply to gravity. As light consist of quanta, it is only logical that gravitational quanta interact with light. In my article “Cognitive bias in physics with respect to Einstein’s relativity, demonstrated by the famous experiment of Pound and Rebka (1960), which in reality refutes Einstein’s general relativity” [R. G. Ziefle, Phys. Essays 35, 91 (2022)], I could demonstrate that Einstein’s “proper time” t 0 does not refer to reference frames but to gravitational potentials. That is why “Newtonian quantum gravity” [R. G. Ziefle, Phys. Essays 33, 99 (2020)] can predict the correct curvature of a light beam at the surface of the Sun. Also, the phenomena observed at the binary pulsar PSR B1913 + 16 can precisely be predicted by merely applying Kepler’s second law. If gravitational quanta move away from masses with the constant speed c of light, this coincides with Einstein’s postulate of a constant speed c of light with respect to reference frames, as a mass, such as a star or a planet, can also be defined as a reference frame. Therefore, Einstein’s found by chance an artificial and complicated method to calculate changes in space-time caused by motion, which are in reality additional gravitational effects caused by the relative velocity between gravitational quanta emitted by masses and other masses or photons.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".