MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117459659 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-38.4.301

Disproving Einstein’s light speed invariance postulate

2025· article· en· W7117459659 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suniti K. Ghoshal

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRelativity and Gravitational Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeed of light (cellular automaton)Inertial frame of referenceOne-way speed of lightFrame (networking)Relative velocityReference frameFrame of referenceMoving frame

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conceptual validity of the light speed constancy postulate has been studied both analytically and through a thought experiment. It is shown that the presumed light speed invariance principle contradicts physical reality and that the speed of light measured relative to a moving inertial frame depends on the velocity of that frame. A simple thought experiment further reveals that the measured value of the speed of light relative to a moving inertial frame depends not only on the speed v of the frame but also on its direction of motion relative to the direction of propagation of the light pulse. The speed of light acquires a value of ( c − v ) or ( c + v ), depending on whether the frame and the light pulse move in the same or opposite directions, respectively.

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 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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics EssaysSame topicRelativity and Gravitational TheoryFrench-language works237,207