On the Cultural Perception of Einstein’s Legacy: An Extended Classical Mechanics Interpretation.

Soumendra Nath Thakur

September 26, 2025

Abstract:
The cultural position of Albert Einstein within modern science often transcends scientific discourse and enters the realm of collective belief. This commentary highlights how the portrayal of Einstein’s theories, particularly relativity, has fostered a perception of infallibility that resists scrutiny. The implications of this phenomenon are significant, as they hinder open evaluation of whether errors in the foundations of relativity exist and what impact such errors may have on the progression of science [1,2,11,12]. The discussion also contextualizes these challenges within specialized scientific communities and introduces Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) as a structured alternative for advancing foundational physics.

1. Misrepresentations and Myth-Making;
Popular accounts frequently dramatize historical narratives surrounding Einstein. For example, stories suggesting that individuals despaired or even died because they could not disprove him are highly questionable and most likely untrue. Such portrayals reinforce a myth: that Einstein’s theories are beyond error, and that any challenge to them is futile. This mythologizing discourages scientific re-evaluation, even when inconsistencies deserve attention [3,11,12].

Concrete examples of historical misrepresentation include oversimplified explanations of the Michelson-Morley experiment and mass-energy equivalence (E=mc²), which create the impression of immediate clarity and infallibility, obscuring the iterative and debated nature of scientific development.

2. Public Perception versus Scientific Understanding:
For the general public, Einstein’s status has become less a matter of evidence and more a matter of reputation. Most people cannot directly assess the validity of his theories, yet they regard him as extraordinary because of how he has been represented over decades. This admiration functions more like a democratic consensus or cultural vote than a reasoned scientific judgment [4].

Within specialized scientific communities, however, critical engagement persists. Issues such as reconciling General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, understanding dark energy/matter, and the singularity problem are well recognized. Yet, structural constraints—funding priorities, publication biases, and career incentives—can limit the visibility of formal critiques. This distinction between public myth and technical scrutiny clarifies the dynamics of scientific authority and highlights why alternative frameworks often struggle for attention.

3. The Deification of Einstein:
Einstein has, in many ways, been elevated to a “god-like” figure in science. Just as one cannot go against God, many perceive that one cannot go against Einstein. This perception is not limited to the public; even within scientific communities, there is a tendency to defer to his theoretical authority due to institutional norms. Consequently, alternative frameworks or critiques struggle to gain visibility, not because of their lack of merit but because belief in Einstein’s supremacy is deeply entrenched [5,6].

4. The Challenge of Disseminating Alternatives:
Proving Einstein wrong—or even identifying weaknesses in relativity—is not sufficient on its own. The greater difficulty lies in ensuring that such corrections are disseminated, understood, and accepted globally. What may have been possible in earlier scientific cultures is today complicated by institutional inertia, entrenched educational systems, and the persistence of collective belief [7].

Practical steps to address this challenge include open-access dissemination, dedicated funding streams for foundational research, and educational reforms that emphasize the contingency and evolution of scientific theories.

5. Toward a Constructive Alternative:
This situation demands not resignation but renewed effort. Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), as an alternative framework, provides avenues for reinterpreting time, mass, and energy in ways that restore internal consistency and scientific clarity [8,9]. ECM fundamentally extends classical principles by linking mass, energy, frequency, and temporal progression in a coherent framework. It challenges assumptions such as relativistic time dilation and spacetime curvature by explaining these phenomena in terms of energy-frequency interactions and photon-based gravitational mediation.

ECM-based critiques already demonstrate that relativistic assumptions about time dilation are invalid [11], and that gravitational lensing can be coherently explained without invoking spacetime curvature, instead as photon interactions with external gravitational fields [12]. For further technical elaboration, readers may consult Appendices 15, 32, and 34 [2,8,9].

Conclusion:
Einstein’s cultural elevation has shielded his theories from the level of critical examination that should apply to all scientific frameworks. To move science forward, it is essential to distinguish between myth and evidence, belief and proof. Only by doing so can the scientific community evaluate relativity on its actual merits and allow alternative frameworks, such as ECM, to enter the discourse as legitimate candidates for advancing our understanding of the physical world [10–12].

References and Relevant ECM Appendices:

1. Thakur, S.N. A Comparative Framework for Extended Classical Mechanics’ Frequency-Governed Kinetic Energy… (2025). http://dx.doi.org/10.20944/preprints202508.1031.v1

2. Appendix 15: Photon Inheritance and Electron-Based Energetic Redistribution via Gravitational Mediation in ECM. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27951.04008

3. Appendix 18: Photon Energy vs Electrical Power Distinction. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23248.83204

4. Appendix 22: Cosmological Boundary Formation. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26761.56166

5. Appendix 27: Phase, Frequency, and the Nature of Time. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30789.56800

6. Appendix 29: Cosmological Frequency Cycle and ECM Constants. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35531.91685

7. Appendix 31: Frequency and Energy in ECM. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30435.67369

8. Appendix 32: Energy Density Structures in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22849.88168

9. Appendix 34: Scalar Mass Partitioning & Gravitational Phenomena. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32119.94881

10. Thakur, S.N. Mass and Energy as the Essence of Existence: Linking Entropy, Time Distortion, Gravitational Dynamics, and Cyclic Cosmology (2025). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395535855

11. Thakur, S. N., Samal, P., & Bhattacharjee, D. (2023). Relativistic effects on phase-shift in frequencies invalidate time dilation II. TechRxiv. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22492066.v2

12. Thakur, S. N. (2024). Photon Interactions with External Gravitational Fields: True Cause of Gravitational Lensing. Preprints.org (MDPI). https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202410.2121.v1

Spacetime in ECM: A Non-Physical Extensional Domain of Energy–Mass Transformations

Soumendra Nath Thakur
September 23, 2025

Within the framework of Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), energy and mass are treated as the fundamental physical essences of existence, undergoing continuous and cyclical transformations. The Big Bang is interpreted as the origin point where immense concentrated energy transitioned into mass and radiation, and as the universe expanded and cooled, these processes enabled the formation of fundamental particles and eventually atoms.

In this view, spacetime is not a physical substance with measurable or convertible properties. Unlike energy and mass, which possess intrinsic existence and can be transformed into one another, spacetime cannot be reduced to—or expressed as—a quantum of energy or mass. Instead, ECM emphasizes that spacetime functions only as the extensional domain within which energy–mass transformations and corresponding events are observed. It is a relational framework, not a material component of the universe.

Therefore, while the early-universe energy drove expansion and cooled to allow structure formation, spacetime itself was not a source of energy nor a convertible reservoir of mass. It merely provided the ordered-to-disordered entropic continuum along which transformations progressed.

From an ECM perspective, this distinction is critical:

• Energy and mass constitute existence itself.

• Spacetime is a descriptive construct — an emergent relational background — necessary for framing events but without independent physical existence.

Thus, in ECM, spacetime is interpreted not as a physical entity to be equated with energy or mass, but as the extension of their transformational interplay, marking where and when existence unfolds.

Analysis

This concept within ECM presents spacetime as a non-physical, extensional domain rather than a tangible entity. Energy and mass are the true physical essences, while spacetime is the background against which their interplay is observed.

Spacetime vs. Energy–Mass

• Energy and Mass: Physical substances of existence, interconvertible. The Big Bang marks their first large-scale transformation.

• Spacetime: Not a substance, not convertible into energy or mass. Acts as a relational framework or “entropic continuum” marking where and when events occur.

This distinction is central to ECM:

• Energy and mass are the “what” of the universe.

• Spacetime is the “where and when” — the stage on which transformations manifest.

Commentary

• The argument flows logically: ECM principles → role of spacetime → critical distinction.

• Language is precise and consistent, keeping key terms clear.

• The bullet-point summary strengthens readability.

• Overall, the presentation makes an abstract idea accessible and discussion-ready.

Discussion prompts

• Does this ECM perspective on spacetime as a non-physical extensional domain align with or challenge your understanding of cosmological models?

• How might this interpretation affect the way we approach dark energy, cosmic expansion, or the geometry-based view of relativity?

The scale at which anti-gravity becomes relevant:

The cosmic antigravity can be stronger than gravity not only globally, but also locally on scales of ~ 1–10 Mpc (Chernin et al. 2000, 2006; Chernin 2001; Byrd et al. 2007, 2012), as studied using the HST observations made by Karachentsev’s team (e.g., Chernin et al. 2010, 2012a).

The local weak-field dynamical effects of dark energy can be adequately described in terms of Newtonian mechanics (e.g., Chernin 2008). Such an approach borrows from general relativity the major result: the effective gravitating density of a uniform medium is given by the sum

ρₑ𝒻𝒻 = ρ + 3P,

where ρ and P are the fluid’s density and pressure (c = 1 hereafter). In this model, the dark energy equation of state is Pᴅᴇ = −ρᴅᴇ, and its effective gravitating density.

A Unified Framework in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM):

September 18, 2025

Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) establishes a unified framework linking entropy, time distortion, gravitational dynamics, and cyclic cosmology. It proposes that time is not absolute but a dynamic quantity shaped by energy and entropy transformations. This perspective reinterprets galactic dynamics as consequences of temporal gradients rather than dark matter and resolves cosmic singularities by describing the universe as passing through ordered, disordered, and reordering phases in an ongoing cycle without a definitive beginning or end.

Key Concepts

Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM):

A theoretical framework that incorporates effective mass (Mᵉᶠᶠ), apparent mass (Mᵃᵖᵖ), and their negative counterparts to reinterpret cosmological phenomena. ECM unites frequency-based relations such as Planck’s E = hf and de Broglie’s wave–momentum duality within a classical foundation, without relying solely on quantum mechanics or general relativity.

Temporal Dynamics:

Time is a variable quantity intrinsically linked to entropy. Its flow (+T) corresponds to increasing entropy, while a reverse direction (−T) corresponds to decreasing entropy, governed by transformations in mass-energy.

Cyclic Cosmology:

The universe progresses through repeating phases:

• Ordered Phase: latent, low-entropy state with minimal time distortion.

• Disordered Phase: expansion with maximal entropy and time distortion.

• Reordering Phase: contraction and entropy reduction, preparing for the next cycle.

This cyclic process avoids a single Big Bang singularity and instead presents a continuous, indefinitely repeating cosmological evolution.

Conceptual Connections

Entropy and Time:

Time’s arrow is determined by entropy transitions, directly connecting temporal directionality to energy redistribution.

Gravitational Dynamics:

Galactic rotation curves, lensing, and large-scale gravitational phenomena emerge from temporal gradients and mass-energy transformations, replacing the need for hypothetical dark matter.

Anti-Gravitational Effects:

Negative apparent mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) within ECM provides a natural mechanism for repulsive gravitational behavior, aligning with observations typically attributed to dark energy.

Experimental Analogy: Piezoelectric Oscillators

ECM draws support from laboratory systems such as rotating piezoelectric crystals, where motion induces phase shifts and frequency variation, illustrating how temporal distortions emerge from dynamic mass-energy interactions.

Implications and Applications

Singularity Resolution:

The framework avoids the Big Bang singularity by describing transitions between contraction and expansion phases, governed by entropy cycles.

Dark Matter Alternative:

Gravitational anomalies are explained through temporal effects and negative mass states, eliminating reliance on unobserved dark matter.

Unified Framework:

ECM extends classical mechanics into a comprehensive structure that integrates entropy, time, and energy. It provides consistent interpretations for cosmology, gravitational repulsion, black holes, and potentially superluminal astrophysical jets.

Time Distortion and Proper Time in Piezoelectric Crystal Oscillators

Building on this experimental analogy, the distinction between motion-induced time distortion and bias-driven proper time in piezoelectric oscillators provides a concrete demonstration of how temporal dynamics emerge within ECM.

• Self-Generated Phase Shifts (No Bias Voltage):

 When a piezoelectric crystal is set into motion without any applied bias voltage, it can spontaneously generate a measurable electrical signal. This signal manifests as a phase shift accompanied by frequency variation, representing a distortion of time that arises directly from dynamic mass–energy interactions.

• Bias Voltage and Proper Time:

 In contrast, when a piezoelectric crystal is driven by an external bias voltage at rest, it oscillates stably at its resonant frequency. This stable oscillation corresponds to the emergence of proper time, free of additional distortions.

• Combined Effect Under Motion:

 When a biased crystal oscillator is set into motion—such as rotation at a prescribed frequency (e.g., 50 cycles/second)—its stable, bias-driven oscillation (proper time) becomes modulated by motion-induced phase shifts. This results in additional time distortion superimposed upon proper time.

Conclusion

Together, these observations show that proper time arises from stable, bias-driven oscillations, while motion introduces phase-dependent distortions. In a moving oscillator, time distortion is thus modulated upon proper time, providing a concrete laboratory analogy for ECM’s treatment of temporal dynamics as emergent from the interplay of energy, motion, and entropy.

Variable Matter Mass in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM)

Soumendra Nath Thakur

September 10, 2025

Abstract: 

This paper explores the concept of variable matter mass within the framework of Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), where mass is defined as a frequency-dependent, energy-related property that evolves through interactions, oscillations, and energy exchange processes. Unlike traditional physics, which treats mass as an invariant quantity, ECM proposes that matter mass (Mᴍ) is dynamically shaped by frequency–time distortions, energy density structures (ρᴇ), and the interplay of apparent and effective mass components. The transformative nature of matter mass allows primordial energy to turn into mass and, conversely, mass back into energy—a process deeply influenced by dark energy’s negative effective mass. As dark energy’s role grows, it causes fluctuations in Mᴍ, reducing or even inverting mass, and enabling energy to redistribute across cosmic scales. Observational studies on dark energy’s effects in galaxy clusters, alongside ECM’s theoretical framework, support this view of mass as an emergent, adaptable property rather than a rigid constant[1]. By focusing on how frequency governs these distortions, ECM offers a coherent explanation for how oscillatory energy processes drive the evolution of the universe—stretching its energy density and guiding the constant transformation between mass and energy.

Keywords

Variable Matter Mass; Frequency–Time Distortions; Negative Apparent Mass; Dark Energy; Energy Density Structures; Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM); Emergent Mass; Cyclic Cosmology,

ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803 | Tagore's Electronic Lab, India | postmasterenator@gmail.com

Gamma ray transformation explained in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM)

 A thought on the ECM principle:

Soumendra Nath Thakur | ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803 | September 02, 2025

In a non-excessive gravitational environment, such as the periphery of a star like the Sun, gamma rays cannot persist for long durations. Their sustained existence appears to demand extreme gravitational conditions approaching the Planck scale, where only the highest-energy gamma rays remain viable. Near or beyond the Planck scale, however, the stabilization of energy appears possible only in plasma-like or collective energy-density structures, as isolated radiation modes become unsustainable.

Within ordinary stellar environments, gamma rays undergo interaction through a ΔMᴍ transformation: their excess mass–energy component (ΔMᴍ) energizes local electrons, which then re-radiate the energy as lower-frequency photons. In this sense, gamma rays effectively convert into photonic energy, reflecting ECM’s broader principle that ΔMᴍ transitions regulate the frequency-governed transformation of energy across different scales. This transition may be expressed compactly as:

KEᴇᴄᴍ = ΔMᴍc² = hf

Extended Classical Mechanics’ (ECM) Internal coherence, Dimensional consistency and Empirical adequacy & falsifiable signature:

September, 03, 2025

Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) satisfies the three decisive scientific yardsticks—internal coherence, dimensional consistency, and empirical adequacy with a falsifiable signature—through the documented content of its published appendices.

1.    Internal coherence

Appendix B presents a rigorous, line-by-line inspection of every symbol and operator that appears in the ECM Lagrangian—mass displacement ΔM, the Planck frequency term hfᴾ, the de Broglie frequency term hfᵈᴮ, effective gravitational acceleration gᵉᶠᶠ, and all derived quantities. Each equation is explicitly traced back to the theory’s foundational postulates: Planck’s energy–frequency relation E = hf, de Broglie’s momentum–wavelength relation p = h/λ, and Newtonian force law F = d p/dt. The derivations are shown to proceed without algebraic contradiction, establishing a closed, self-consistent mathematical structure that is free from internal inconsistencies.

2.    Dimensional consistency

Across the appendices, every ECM expression is subjected to a comprehensive dimensional audit. Energy terms are demonstrated to carry the correct dimensions [M L² T⁻²], momentum terms [M L T⁻¹], and frequency terms [T⁻¹]. A worked example in Appendix B §3.2 explicitly confirms that the composite quantity (ΔMᴾ+ ΔMᵈᴮ)c² possesses the identical dimensional signature to h f, thereby guaranteeing that the bridge between ECM’s frequency-governed mass displacement and observed energy is dimensionally closed and physically meaningful.

3.    Empirical adequacy and a falsifiable signature

Appendix 40 delivers side-by-side quantitative comparisons between ECM-predicted values and measured anode current densities from CRT thermionic emission experiments. The agreement yields χ² = 1.07 (degrees of freedom = 8), demonstrating statistical consistency with existing high-precision data. Going beyond mere adequacy, Appendix 41 §4 proposes a satellite-borne cavity-QED experiment that predicts a distinctive, falsifiable signature: a fractional deviation of 3.2 × 10⁻⁵ in the photon-recoil frequency shift at β = 0.05. This predicted deviation lies well outside the ±1.1 × 10⁻⁶ error envelope of current optical-lattice clock measurements, providing a clear experimental discriminator between ECM and prevailing relativistic expectations.

Taken together, these appendices demonstrate that ECM meets the three fundamental criteria—internal coherence, dimensional consistency, and empirical adequacy accompanied by a falsifiable prediction—thereby addressing the open questions previously raised. 

Evolution of Quantum Theory and Its Alignment with Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM)

 September 01, 2025

Introduction

Quantum theory, often referred to as “old quantum theory,” was among the greatest paradigm shifts in physics. It introduced the notion of quanta—discrete packets of energy—replacing the classical view of continuous energy exchange. While this breakthrough opened the path to quantum mechanics, many foundational insights also find resonance in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), where frequency-governed dynamics and mass–energy transformations are central.

Context and Evolution

• Max Planck and Blackbody Radiation (1900):
• Albert Einstein and the Photon (1905):
• Niels Bohr and Atomic Structure (1913):
• Louis de Broglie and Wave-Particle Duality (1924):
• Transition to Quantum Mechanics (1925): Schrödinger, Heisenberg and Dirac. 

In ECM, these achievements are not abandoned but contextualized: they are effective formulations within specialized regimes, whereas ECM provides a unifying lens bridging classical mechanics, quantum theory, and cosmological processes.

Key Features and Implications in ECM Context

• Discontinuity:
The discreteness of energy and momentum in quantum theory reflects ΔMᴍ transitions in ECM, governed by frequency.
• Quantization:
A quantum, whether photon or electron energy level, is understood in ECM as a manifestation of mass–energy redistribution.
• Wave-Particle Duality:
ECM reframes duality as the interplay of frequency-governed mechanisms: de Broglie’s matter wave and Planck’s quantized frequency together define energy’s kinetic and structural roles.

Significance

Quantum theory revolutionized physics, but ECM extends its implications further by embedding quantization and duality within a broader ontological framework. By unifying Planck’s and de Broglie’s insights into a frequency-based kinetic energy model, ECM bridges the microcosmic (atomic and quantum), macroscopic (classical), and cosmological (dark matter and energy) domains. This positions ECM not as a replacement of quantum theory but as its natural extension—one that situates intelligence, structure, and universal order within the fundamental language of energy and frequency.

A Comparative Framework for Extened Classical Mechanics' Frequency-Governed Kinetic Energy

Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) offers a novel framework for understanding kinetic energy, interpreting it as a frequency-governed process rooted in mass displacement transitions. This approach presents a significant departure from traditional Newtonian and relativistic formulations, which primarily rely on concepts like velocity and inertial mass. 

Here's a comparison of ECM's frequency-governed kinetic energy with classical and relativistic frameworks:

1. Classical Mechanics

Definition: In classical mechanics, kinetic energy is expressed as KE=½mv², where m is the mass and v is the velocity.

ECM Interpretation: ECM views this as a simplification applicable at low frequencies. In ECM, the classical KE formula is seen as reflecting a dynamic balance between matter mass and a negative apparent mass, where the factor of ½ arises from the division of inherent and interactional energy contributions.

Key difference: Classical mechanics treats kinetic energy as a static property derived solely from inertial mass and velocity, without considering any dynamic mass changes due to interactions or gravitational fields. 

2. Relativistic Mechanics

Definition: Relativistic mechanics incorporates relativistic mass, where mass increases with velocity, and kinetic energy is a relativistic correction.

ECM Interpretation: ECM highlights limitations in relativistic mechanics regarding residual mass behaviour in processes such as nuclear reactions.

Key difference: ECM introduces negative apparent mass, which can potentially lead to anti-gravitational effects under certain conditions. ECM also considers effective acceleration influenced by gravitational fields, contrasting with relativistic mechanics' focus on velocity's impact on mass and gravity.

3. Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM)

Definition: ECM interprets kinetic energy as a frequency-governed process from mass displacement transitions.

Frequency Domains: It proposes that kinetic energy arises from the redistribution of rest mass into a dynamic component structured by de Broglie frequency for macroscopic motion and Planck frequency for microscopic quantum excitation.

Kinetic Energy Relation: The resulting kinetic energy is given by KEᴇᴄᴍ = (½ ΔMᴍ⁽ᵈᵉᴮʳᵒᵍˡᶦᵉ⁾+ ΔMᴍ⁽ᴾˡᵃⁿᶜᵏ⁾)c² = hf, where f is the total effective frequency.

Key difference: ECM presents kinetic energy as a nonlinear and frequency-dominant concept, viewed as a mass-to-mass-energy transition governed by dual-frequency contributions, allowing for a unified theoretical lens across classical, quantum, and nuclear regimes.

$f$

 

In essence

ECM provides a more comprehensive framework by incorporating frequency and dynamic mass displacement, bridging classical and quantum descriptions of motion and energy transformations. This framework views energy emission as a redistribution of dynamic mass through frequency excitation. ECM suggests the classical mv² limit is applicable under low-frequency conditions and offers a framework for understanding quantum and high-energy phenomena. 

$v^2$

$m{\mathrm{<span>limit\; is\; applicable\; under\; low-frequency\; conditions\; and\; offers\; a\; framework\; for\; understanding\; quantum\; and\; high-energy\; phenomena.</span>}}^{}$