Experimental Verification and Analysis of the Postulate of Relativity in Relativity Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the postulate of relativity in relativity theory, a flash emits from the light source in a uniformly moving car and returns to the light source after being reflected by the mirror on the roof. The person inside the car thinks that the flash returns to the light source along a vertical line, and the person outside the car thinks that the flash returns to the light source along a curve. The time taken along the two paths is inconsistent. Now, this experiment has proved, the interpretation of the postulate of relativity on light traveling paths is inconsistent with the facts. The light is not affected by any inertial framem, and will not move with the car. Light does not belong to any inertial reference frame, nor affected by any inertial reference frame. Light is different from objects. In the absence of experimental evidence, relativity theory believed that light in the inertial frame obeys Galileo's principle of relativity, which is imprudent and wrong. The laws Galileo summarized in low-velocity macroscopic state do not apply to light. This experiment proves that light travels behind the inertial frame and does not move with the inertial frame. That is, the spatial position where the light is or light travels through is the stationary reference point for the inertial frame.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".