MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409239027 · doi:10.5539/apr.v17n1p77

Note on Redshift and the Principle of Conservation of Energy

2025· article· en· W4409239027 on OpenAlex
Francois Danis

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace Science and Extraterrestrial Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedshiftConservation of energyEnergy conservationConservation lawEnergy (signal processing)PhysicsAstrophysicsComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsGalaxyElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Redshift has always been associated with the Doppler effect, but sound waves and electromagnetic waves are different; if the association is wrong, the recessional speeds observed in the universe could be wrong. When redshift is observed, the energy of the photon is dropping; that change of energy cannot be explained by the Doppler effect. After a short history of the link Redshift-Doppler, the Ives-Stilwell experiment will be reinterpreted as a proof of special relativity, not a proof of the Doppler effect. A new proposal is presented: because of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, there must be a potential field to explain that acceleration. A change of potential along that field could explain the change of energy corresponding to the redshift.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.324 · 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