Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the application of special relativity to different thought experiments. Some issues will be noted and a modification of special relativity will be presented. That modification can be tested and one interpretation of the preliminary result supports the modification. After presenting the history of special relativity, the non-simultaneity of special relativity is questioned in our macro world. In addition, some issues between light-clocks and the application of Lorentz transformation are presented. All this indicates that there is something not right with special relativity. A new proposal is presented based on an adaptation of special relativity; this new proposal solves the anomalies and could be a solution to the twin paradox. It has a prediction: a difference with special relativity which has been tested with a new experiment and the preliminary results support the new proposal. Previously, a lack of special relativistic effects has been observed in the universe [Davis et al., 2004]; that second observation is also explained with the new proposal.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".