Kinematics theory of balls and light versus the theory of special relativity—June 2025
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of the emission, propagation, and reflection of balls leads to the mechanical ballistic law that applies to balls with and without mass. A natural extension of the ballistic law is to encompass massless entities such as light. According to the ballistic law, a ball or a light wavefront emitted by a source inherits the velocity of its source in the absolute frame. The ballistic law governs the kinematics of balls and light in inertial frames from the background of the absolute frame. The mathematical expression of the ballistic law gives the propagation velocity of a ball and light wavefront as the vector sum of the ball's or the light wavefront's velocity emitted by a source and the source's velocity. The ballistic law explains why the speed of light is a universal constant c in any inertial frame in which a source and a mirror are at rest, the laws of physics have the same form in any inertial frame, and no experiment in such a frame can prove its motion. By understanding the kinematics of light, we can understand the multiple issues rooted in Lorentz's transformation and Einstein's special relativity. For example, the theory of special relativity misapplies the symmetry observed in some phenomena to two inertial frames. Thus, it duplicates a physics phenomenon from one inertial frame, considered stationary, to another. The Lorentz transformation confirms the speed of light c in the moving and opposite direction of the inertial frame. Simultaneously, it varies in any other direction, converging to infinity. Lorentz's transformation has no length contractions or dilations as special relativity pretends. This study confirms the constancy of time passage in the universe and the variability of the propagation speed of light wavefronts in the absolute 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".