Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing theories of gravity encompass Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's general relativity; however, they fail to fully elucidate the nature of gravity and the mechanisms by which it influences the motion of objects. This article presents a new gravitational theory model proposed by the author, introducing the concept of gravitational line flux. By employing mathematical methods such as Gauss's theorem and Stokes's theorem, the study investigates how variations in gravitational flux through a closed spatial surface affect the motion of objects. The following laws are proposed: (1) The gravitational flux through a closed surface is directly proportional to the mass m of the enclosed celestial body. (2) Changes in gravitational flux through a semiclosed surface in the direction of an object's motion alter the object's motion state in space, while concurrently, the object's motion induces variations in the gravitational flux through the surface. (3) The time variation increment of gravitational flux through a semiclosed surface in the direction of the object's motion is proportional to the object's acceleration. Furthermore, the motion equations of gravitational fields for celestial bodies or matter in local inertial and noninertial frames are derived.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".