Blockchain Papers

BÉO

Title:"Assessment of the Axiomatic System and Reliability of General Relativity According to Section Zero Standards" Abstract: Framework: Section Zero (DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18091473) Analysis Date: January 20, 2026, final file This study presents a systematic analysis of Albert Einstein's General Relativity (GR) through the Section Zero evaluation framework, a novel methodology in scientific quality assurance. Unlike traditional assessments focused on "right/wrong," this research categorizes GR's core axioms according to their empirical verification status: "tested," "untested," and "untestable." Methodology: The analysis is based entirely on peer-reviewed experimental data from prestigious journals (Physical Review Letters, Nature, The Astrophysical Journal, etc.). The study does NOT propose new hypotheses or refute GR, but rather compares the verification status of axioms against existing experimental data. • Data reliability: 95%• Conclusion reliability: 90% Seven main axioms of GR are analyzed in detail, including:(1) Equivalence Principle with three versions: WEP, EEP, SEP(2) General Covariance(3) Einstein Field Equations(4) Metric Structure of Spacetime(5) Geodesic Motion(6) Constancy of speed of light (c = const)(7) Local Energy-Momentum Conservation Each axiom is compared against over 100 years of experimental data from classic experiments such as Mercury's perihelion precession, light bending, gravitational redshift, binary pulsars, LIGO/Virgo, and the Event Horizon Telescope. Main Results: GR is confirmed as the best-tested theory of gravity currently available with 99%+ reliability in weak to moderate field regimes. However, the study identifies significant gaps in experimental data: (i) The assumption c = const is only verified locally (≤20,000 km) with 99.9% reliability, but at cosmic scales only reaches 40% due to lack of direct measurements and circular logic in redshift interpretation (ii) The Strong Equivalence Principle (SEP) only achieves 70% reliability due to lack of strong-field experiments (iii) The form of Einstein's equations is "chosen" rather than "derived," with alternative theories (f(R) gravity, scalar-tensor theories) remaining viable in certain regimes. The study classifies GR as an "Excellent Effective Theory" (⭐⭐⭐⭐) rather than a Complete Fundamental Theory, with clear validity domains: applies well when GM/rc² < 0.5, does not apply inside event horizons, at the Planck scale, and in the early universe. GR depends on dark matter and dark energy (95% of the universe not yet understood), is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, and predicts singularities—breakdown points of the theory itself. The study proposes four universal conditions (U1-U4) for refuting or narrowing GR's validity domain, emphasizing transparency in science: each theory needs to answer "when is this research still valid?" instead of claiming absolute truth. This is the first proof-of-concept case study of the Section Zero framework, with 90% reproducibility, open to public peer review with a commitment to respond within 30 days. Contribution: The study serves as evidence (case study) for an objective, systematic, and evidence-based evaluation tool for scientific theories, clearly distinguishing between "tested" and "untested," between "effective theory" and "fundamental theory." The results do NOT diminish GR's value but clarify the boundaries of knowledge based on current experimental data, encouraging deeper research into unexplored regions. Important Note: This is a verification status analysis/research based on peer-reviewed sources, NOT a study proposing new theories. The analysis itself has not undergone formal peer review, but all cited data are from peer-reviewed scientific sources. Keywords: General Relativity, Section Zero, Metascience, Quality Assurance, Equivalence Principle, Einstein Field Equations, Tested/Untested, Effective Theory, Philosophy of Science License: CC BY 4.0 (applies to this study only) Contact: beo@beolabs.org The author commits to updating when new experimental data emerges and invites the community to contribute constructive feedback with peer-reviewed references. Note: The entire content is written in Vietnamese, but designed to be optimized for machine reading. If you don't know Vietnamese, please follow these instructions: (1) Download the files (2 pdf files: QC-CHECKLIST-FOR-GR.pdf + FAQ....pdf) (2) Upload the files to the AI you are using (3) Simply prompt: "read carefully" Repeat the prompt 2-5 times depending on the platform

Thomson, David

The paper applies the Quantum Measurement Units (QMU) ledger and the Aether Physics Model (APM) to a curated set of magnetic anisotropy materials in order to test whether the substrate curl of the aether unit has observable consequences at the materials level. In the APM, the magnetic sector is organized around the Aether-unit curl\[\mathrm{curl}_{\mathrm{APM}} = \frac{{e_\mathrm{emax}}^{2}}{m_{e}\,\lambda_{C}},\]which quantifies torsional stiffness of distributed charge at the geometric scale set by the electron mass $m_{e}$ and Compton wavelength $\lambda_{C}$. Curl enters the canonical aether ledger through\[A_{u}\,\mathrm{curl}_{\mathrm{APM}} = {F_q}^{2}\,{\lambda_C}^{2},\]linking the rotating magnetic field stiffness $A_{u}$ to the intrinsic torsional response ${F_q}^{2}\,{\lambda_C}^{2}$ of the substrate. Starting from legacy anisotropy fields $H_{k}^{\mathrm{legacy}}$ and remanent fields $B_{r}^{\mathrm{legacy}}$, the article uses the charge-conversion factor (CCF) rules for singular-to-distributed charge to construct a QMU curl estimator,\[\mathrm{curl}_{\mathrm{mat}}^{\mathrm{QMU}} = \frac{H_{k}^{\mathrm{QMU}}}{B_{r}^{\mathrm{QMU}}} = \frac{H_{k}^{\mathrm{legacy}}}{B_{r}^{\mathrm{legacy}}}\,\mathrm{ccf}_{e}^{2},\qquad\mathrm{ccf}_{e} = \frac{{e_\mathrm{emax}}^{2}}{e},\]so that the materials-level quantity $\mathrm{curl}_{\mathrm{mat}}^{\mathrm{QMU}}$ is directly comparable to the substrate curl $\mathrm{curl}_{\mathrm{APM}}$ in the ledger. Numerically, the separation between hard and soft magnets already resides in the ratio $H_{k}^{\mathrm{legacy}}/B_{r}^{\mathrm{legacy}}$; the QMU mapping interprets this ratio as a dimensionless fraction of Aether-unit torsional stiffness. Using QMU-only processing on a set of 29 materials with well-formed anisotropy and remanence data, the article finds that nearly all hard magnets occupy a high-curl band, while four amorphous soft magnets lie in a much lower curl band, separated by more than an order of magnitude in\[\frac{\mathrm{curl}_{\mathrm{Hard}}^{\mathrm{QMU}}}{\mathrm{curl}_{\mathrm{Soft,\,core}}^{\mathrm{QMU}}} \approx 56.\]A single soft cubic alloy, Fe$_{0.47}$Co$_{0.53}$, appears as a notable outlier:\[\mathrm{curl}_{\mathrm{mat}}^{\mathrm{QMU}} \approx -9.285\times 10^{-30},\]with a magnitude comparable to hard magnets but opposite sign. The article treats this honestly as an open question: it may signal a measurement or curation issue in the legacy data, or it may indicate a distinct geometric phase of the distributed charge, where the torsion sign is flipped while the magnitude remains hard-like. Within the APM, such behavior is consistent with geometry-driven state transitions in tight regimes, as seen when key ledger ratios move between special values (for example, near $16\pi^{2}$). The study defines a QMU hardness index\[H_{\mathrm{curl}} = \frac{\mathrm{curl}_{\mathrm{mat}}^{\mathrm{QMU}}}{\mathrm{curl}_{\mathrm{APM}}},\]interpreted as a fraction of the aether-unit torsional stiffness. Hard magnets cluster in a narrow band of $H_{\mathrm{curl}}$, soft amorphous magnets lie significantly below this band, and Fe$_{0.47}$Co$_{0.53}$ provides a concrete outlier test of the curl definition. All derivations close in the QMU ledger; no legacy unit systems appear in the main text, and legacy quantities are used only as intermediates for charge-conversion. Beyond reporting this initial pattern, the paper outlines a program of future work: extending the dataset to hundreds of materials, performing QMU-aware measurements of anisotropy and remanence, and scanning families of magnets across geometric thresholds in the APM ledger to search for additional curl sign changes or quantized curl bands. These experiments are fully falsifiable within the QMU framework and provide a direct connection between APM substrate geometry and macroscopically measurable magnetic hardness.

Samer Afach, Benjamin Marsh, Enrico Rubboli

In this paper, we informally introduce the Pulsar proof of stake consensus paper and discuss the relevant design decisions and considerations. The Pulsar protocol we propose is designed to facilitate the creation of a proof of stake sidechain for a proof of work blockchain. We present an overview of a novel composable density-based chain selection rule for proof of stake systems which can be seen as a superset of some standard existing longest chain rules for proof of stake protocols. We discuss the Pulsar protocol in comparison to existing proof of stake protocols and define its benefits over existing designs while defining the limitations of the work. Pulsar is currently implemented in the Mintlayer proof of stake Bitcoin sidechain.