Experiment to test the Dynamic Medium of Reference theory. Possibility of superluminal communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article outlines the main conceptual differences between the theory of relativity and the theory of the Dynamic Medium of Reference. To distinguish between these two theoretical frameworks, an experiment is proposed: A conducting sphere is electrically charged, generating a constant electrostatic field. This sphere is then abruptly discharged in an extremely short time, on the order of a nanosecond. The electrostatic field is continuously measured by several sensors positioned at different distances from the sphere. According to the predictions of relativity, the disappearance of the electrostatic field should propagate at the speed of light. In contrast, the theory of the Dynamic Medium of Reference postulates a near-instantaneous propagation of the electrostatic field. The expected experimental results therefore differ radically depending on the theoretical framework adopted. If the proposed experiment confirms the predictions of the theory of the Dynamic Medium of Reference, this would imply the possibility of superluminal communications and call into question the foundations of relativity as well as Einstein’s conception of spacetime.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".