MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389801423 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-36.4.372

Criticism of the Lorentz transformations

2023· article· en· W4389801423 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jingshown Wu, Hen‐Wai Tsao, Yen-Ru Huang

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysics and Sensor Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLorentz transformationRest framePhysicsVelocity-addition formulaSimultaneityReference frameRest (music)One-way speed of lightGalileo (satellite navigation)Frame (networking)SIGNAL (programming language)Frame of referenceClassical mechanicsLorentz factorFour-vectorFour-momentumTheory of relativityTest theories of special relativityQuantum mechanicsComputer scienceGeodesyAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lorentz transformations transform the coordinates in a frame at rest and those in a frame moving with a constant velocity with respect to the rest frame. We analyze the Lorentz transformations using a world line diagram and simple algebra, obtaining some astonishing results. We use two examples to demonstrate that the Lorentz transformations contradict reality and are invalid. Employing the proper definition of simultaneity, we formulate the coordinate transformations between the two frames and obtain the Galileo transformations. Additionally, we suppose A, M, and B are points on the x-axis moving in the x direction and the distances AM = MB. Source S rests on the x-axis and emits signals when S and M coincide. The emitted signal reaches A earlier than it reaches B. In other words, A, which is approaching the signal source, receives the signal earlier than B, which is moving away from the signal 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.030
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0060.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics EssaysSame topicGeophysics and Sensor TechnologyFrench-language works237,207