Response to a commenter's Misinterpretation:

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

December 24, 2024

Your reference to "density of space" reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of density, violating its very definition. Density is defined as the measure of how tightly packed a material is, expressed as the mass of a substance per unit volume. While "volume of space" is a valid term, "density of space" is incorrect because space is not a material entity and does not possess mass.

Furthermore, your statement, "anything that expands or contracts, its density decreases or increases," is a flawed analogy. The expansion of distance, as discussed in my post, is a linear phenomenon and does not involve volumetric changes. Measuring distance does not equate to measuring volume, rendering your analogy inapplicable to the concept of increasing distances between galaxies.

Additionally, my post does not reference or account for the density of matter or galaxies. Yet, you have misrepresented it by imposing the idea of "density of matter taking galaxies into account," which my post never addressed. This misrepresentation undermines the context and intent of my argument.

To clarify, the recession of galaxies signifies an increase in the distances between them—a linear increment—not a volumetric mass increase, as you incorrectly implied by referencing density changes.

Your comment fails to address the substance of my argument and instead misinterprets it with irrelevant and baseless counterpoints. I recommend understanding the message of my post more thoroughly before attempting to counter it.

Galactic Recession: Expansion of Distance, Not Spacetime.

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

December 24, 2024

Massive objects, such as galaxies, observed to recede from one another due to the anti-gravitational force exerted by dark energy. This force acts in a manner opposite to gravity, which pulls massive objects closer together. Both phenomena involve changes in the distances between physical objects within space over time. 

This perspective challenges and invalidates the concept of spacetime expansion, emphasizing instead the expansion of distances between galaxies within the universe.

Space as a Framework, Not a Physical Medium:

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

December 24, 2024

A medium is traditionally defined as the intervening substance through which sensory impressions are conveyed or physical forces are transmitted. However, space is not a physical substance; it does not serve as a medium in this sense. Electromagnetic propagation, therefore, requires no physical medium between its emission and reception. Instead, space represents the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move. It is not a medium but a framework within which existential events occur.

Emphasizing ECM Interpretation of Relativistic Mass as Effective Mass:

December 24, 2024.

Dear Mr. Lewis,

Thank you for your continued interest and engagement in the discussion of my research. Your contributions reflect an active inquiry into foundational aspects of physics, and I appreciate the opportunity to address them.

Core Framework of my Research:

The research paper, 'Relativistic Mass and Energy Equivalence: Energetic Form of Relativistic Mass in Special Relativity,' explores the variability of mass and its impact on mass-energy equivalence. While it operates within the context of special relativity, it is interpreted through the lens of Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) to establish a refined framework for analysing mass-energy relationships. Specifically, the term effective mass (mᵉᶠᶠ) in ECM provides a unifying concept that bridges relativistic mass (m′) with apparent mass (mᵃᵖᵖ) and the variability of matter mass (mᴍ). 

1. Relativistic Mass (m′) as Effective Mass (mᵉᶠᶠ):

• In the context of ECM, relativistic mass (m′) is represented as effective mass (mᵉᶠᶠ), which integrates the variability arising from apparent mass (mᵃᵖᵖ). 

• This framework highlights that relativistic mass (m′) manifests not merely as a velocity-dependent quantity but also as a dynamic interplay of mass variability and energy exchange.

2. Energy-Mass Equivalence in ECM:

• The effective mass (mᵉᶠᶠ) captures the relativistic energy dynamics by unifying the rest mass (m₀) with variability induced by apparent mass (mᵃᵖᵖ).

• This provides an enriched perspective compared to the classical relativistic equation E=m′c², extending its application to dynamic systems governed by ECM principles.

Addressing Your Comments

1. Wave Nature of Light and Space as a Medium:

While your assertion that light is a wave in the medium of space is thought-provoking, it diverges from the framework of ECM and the focus of this research. The ECM framework does not address the existence of a medium for light propagation but instead interprets photon behaviour through effective forces and energy exchanges, such as the incorporation of negative apparent mass in photon dynamics. 

2. Electron, Proton, and Neutron as Looped Waves:

The hypothesis of subatomic particles as looped waves in a medium, though innovative, lies outside the ECM framework, which does not challenge the quark model or introduce alternative structural interpretations of matter. Instead, ECM focuses on refining force and energy equations for particles, emphasizing variability in mass and energy under relativistic and classical conditions.

3. Rejection of Quarks and Balmer Formula Interpretation:

While your conclusions about quarks and the Balmer formula propose a reinterpretation of quantum mechanics, these ideas are not pertinent to the ECM framework or the specific discussion of relativistic mass equivalence. The paper does not address quantum-level structural analyses or alternative cosmological models.

Why Your Response is Irrelevant:

Your recent response introduces concepts that are not aligned with the specific objectives of the paper, including:

1. Unrelated Frameworks:

• The hypothesis of a wave medium and looped wave particles shifts the discussion away from the ECM interpretation of relativistic mass and effective mass.

2. Scope of the Paper:

• The research focuses exclusively on mass-energy equivalence through the ECM lens, not on alternative theories of particle or wave dynamics.

3. Absence of Engagement with ECM Principles:

• Your response does not address the core ECM principles, such as the role of apparent mass (mᵃᵖᵖ) in effective mass (mᵉᶠᶠ) or the dynamic variability of matter mass (mᴍ).

Conclusion

While your insights provide an alternative perspective, they are not directly relevant to the specific objectives or findings of this research paper. I encourage discussions that engage with the ECM interpretation of mass-energy equivalence, particularly the integration of relativistic mass as effective mass (mᵃᵖᵖ) and its implications for energy dynamics.

Thank you for your understanding and engagement. I look forward to further discussions that align with the ECM framework and the principles outlined in the research.

Best regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Researcher