On the validity of the principle of relativity in the physical universe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present several examples showing that a significant discrepancy exists between the principle of relativity in the real physical universe and its mathematical model, especially for high relativistic velocities. According to this principle, all inertial systems are equivalent, i.e., indistinguishable. However, a fast-moving traveler in any direction in the physical universe can readily determine that his system is not equivalent with others, since there exists a preferred cosmic reference system S 0 , associated with the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, which has the same temperature 2.73 K in all directions. At high velocities with respect to S 0 , the traveler will detect strong anisotropy in this radiation, which may shift the CMB into infrared or even x-ray radiation due to the Doppler effect. A similar anisotropy appears when detecting intergalactic gas and dust, as well as light from stars and galaxies. Thus, the traveler can observe that the spectrum of galaxies on one half of the celestial sphere is shifted toward blue, while on the opposite half it is shifted toward red. Moreover, all neighboring galaxies, without exception, would be moving with respect to the traveler at high relativistic velocities in nearly the same direction. The reference system S 0 is unavoidable and cannot be overridden, eliminated, or ignored, since the CMB is present everywhere. This violates the principle of relativity in the physical universe. Since this principle is a fundamental assumption in the special theory of relativity, it is essential to verify whether the theory provides an adequate approximation of reality.
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 | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".