Toward a gravitational theory based on mass-induced accelerated space expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The general theory of relativity (GTR) has proved to accurately describe all gravitational aspects of our universe. This theory was developed by Einstein under the premises of the principle of equivalence to describe the behavior of inertial systems in accelerated reference frames, but the physical basis for the principle of equivalence and for the existence of accelerated reference frames remains to be understood. Here, we postulate that the principle of equivalence could be explained in terms of an accelerated flow of space toward the origin of the gravitational field, which would explain the accelerated reference frames. We provide evidence that the gravitational constant predicts the observed increase in the Hubble constant from early to late universe. This suggests that gravity and accelerated expansion of the universe could derive from the same physical principle depending on the mass density operating in each process. Mass-induced accelerated space expansion through a hypothetical fourth spatial dimension could explain the curvature of spacetime. It would be the projection of the expanded space to our three-dimensional universe what would lead to relativistic gravitational effects such as time dilation, redshift, and black hole formation. Therefore, a gravitational theory can be envisioned, halfway between classical mechanics and GTR.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".