Bibliographic record
Abstract
The myth of this “quasi-magical” gravity and its “effect at a distance” endures, and our brains remain “hardwired” to this perception. However, “quantum gravity” is increasingly closer to nullifying the importance of this mysterious force by treating it with the outmost contempt as a “negligible force.” We concur with this interpretation, and more: We claim in this article that not only is gravity negligible but also explain how it can be completely eliminated as one of four fundamental forces of the universe. This article is, in fact, a continuation, a widening, and a confirmation of an article I wrote in 1993, titled “The proportional expansion of each and every celestial body as the cause of gravitation” [Phys. Essays 6, 473 (1993)]. There, I had argued that not only is empty space expanding in the classically understood sense, but that all celestial bodies are also subject to an accelerated expansion. According to Einstein’s principle of equivalence, acceleration generates an opposite, “fictitious” force that is perceived as gravity. I had concluded there that “in terms of quantum mechanics, in this interpretation, the very existence of the predicted ‘graviton’ becomes extremely questionable.” Thirty years have passed since then. And in spite of the development of the Large Hadron Collider and its impressive capabilities, the above claim has been confirmed, and the graviton has been quietly replaced by the Higgs boson in the nomenclature of the Standard Model of elementary particles. In this article, we revisit Galileo and Newton to show that the latter could not have arrived at any other conclusion than an “attractive” force of gravity. We also ask why Albert Einstein did not apply his own principle of equivalence to the Newtonian interpretation of gravity. At the same time, some very “peculiar” interpretations have arisen since my above-mentioned article from 1993. “Dark matter” and “dark energy,” both very speculative conceptualizations, have been forced upon us to explain two phenomena: The anomaly discovered in the speed of rotation of the galaxies, and the accelerated expansion of the universe, despite the potentially shrinking effect of gravity. Of all the positive advances in physics, the most fundamental is the genesis of “quantum gravity,” the tenets of which relegate gravity to the level of a “negligible” force. This is followed by the characterization of the Higgs boson, which has replaced the graviton in the Standard Model. This conceptually translates into the fact that the gravitational mass has possibly been replaced by the inertial mass of celestial bodies. The confirmation and measurements of the accelerated expansion of the universe, while there is still some controversies regarding the exact results of these measurements. Finally, the most important discovery in this regard was recently made in 2019, regarding the exceptionally high pressure inside protons and neutrons, (1035 Pa). This lends credence to the concept of the expansion of these subatomic particles. The multiplicity of these hadrons (3.26 × 1080) and their ubiquitous distribution in the baryonic matter of the entire universe explain its expansion. These hadrons are highly “diluted” in empty space but, on the contrary, are highly clustered and concentrated inside solid matter, where this explains the difference in density between these media and the massive dissimilarity in the magnitudes of their relative accelerated expansion. It also explains why what we call “gravity” is not an active force, but merely the consequence of the density-proportional accelerated radial expansion of each and every celestial body. As such, this baryonic expansion explains the expansion of the universe as a whole, and replaces gravity as a concept as well as its perceived effects. By dint of its ubiquitous nature, this notion of baryonic expansion provides a bridge between the microscopic and macroscopic universe. Quantum physics reconnects with general relativity in this formalism and clarifies the “what and how.”
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".