TOPOLOGY AND THE MAGNETIC MONOPOLE REPLACE UNIVERSAL EXPANSION WITH MAGNETIC DATA SWAPPING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rajan iyer sent me a link to the tegs 2025 conference in budapest, hungary which he chaired (i was unable to attend, and i thank him very much for the link). I saw part of the talk about expansion of the universe and turning the universe inside out. Since i'm a researchgate member who couldn't attend the conference, i'd like to offer some thoughts about why there's no cosmic expansion (that’s admittedly an extraordinary claim, which is why i’ve supplied extraordinary, but scientific, thoughts). I think the movement of galaxies away from each other is not evidence that the universe is expanding. I believe it means the universe itself is the magnetic monopole physicists are seeking. Let me explain (this 1st section may not seem relevant at first but the ideas of spacetime’s composition become essential when trying to tell how the universe could actually be static at the largest scale). Here are some of the subjects in this article - universe as magnetic monopole, building blocks of space-time, holographic principle, quantum mechanics only superficially probabilistic, maths and physics explaining massless gluon, real and imaginary numbers, advanced and retarded waves, mobius strip, klein bottle, wick rotation, aharonov-bohm effect, frames of reference, multiverse-universe unification, dark matter and dark energy modified, flat and simply connected cosmos, model of universe in virtual and augmented reality, steady state theory and creation of mass, data swapping and galaxy displacement.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".