Scientific Authority, Paradigm Bias, and the Need for Balanced Scrutiny in Theoretical Challenges

Soumendra Nath Thakur

May 19, 2025

When a scientifically consistent alternative framework challenges a well-established theory—such as relativity—the focus of scrutiny too often falls disproportionately on the individual proposing the alternative, rather than prompting a balanced and critical re-evaluation of the dominant theory itself. This asymmetry is not only counterproductive but also historically recurrent in the development of science.

Established theories typically enjoy strong institutional backing, extensive historical development, and widespread acceptance due to their practical applications. As a result, questioning them can appear to undermine the collective efforts and intellectual investments of generations of scientists. This psychological and social inertia frequently leads to resistance, not necessarily on scientific grounds, but due to deeply embedded paradigm commitments—as famously described by Thomas Kuhn.

Moreover, scientists, being human, are not immune to confirmation bias. They may more readily accept evidence that supports prevailing theories while dismissing or demanding higher proof from alternative proposals. This leads to a double standard: new frameworks must endure intense scrutiny and carry a heavy burden of proof, while traditional models are often granted undue leniency, even when empirical anomalies or conceptual flaws emerge.

A key concern arises when this imbalance allows potentially flawed assumptions to remain unchallenged, thereby obstructing scientific progress. Instead of testing both the new and old ideas with equal rigor, the scientific community may prioritize defending the established view—sometimes to the detriment of discovery.

To foster genuine advancement, scientific evaluation must adhere to objective standards. This includes:

• Rigorous examination of the alternative theory’s internal consistency and mathematical foundation.

• Careful assessment of empirical evidence supporting the new framework.

• A critical reappraisal of the traditional theory in light of the challenge.

• Open, respectful, and evidence-based debate that prioritizes ideas over authority.

Skepticism is a healthy and necessary part of scientific inquiry, but it must be evenly applied. Disproportionate skepticism directed only at new ideas, while shielding established theories from equivalent critique, creates a pseudo-authoritative environment contrary to the principles of science itself.

Science, unlike legal or political institutions, should not be governed by authoritative consensus. Scientific knowledge is inherently provisional, always subject to refinement or replacement as better explanations arise. Theories are not meant to be preserved as immutable truths but must remain open to falsification—a core tenet emphasized by Karl Popper.

Treating scientific premises as unquestionable dogma suppresses critical inquiry and innovation. Progress depends on the freedom to explore unconventional ideas and to challenge prevailing models without fear of institutional or reputational reprisal. Authority and tradition must never replace evidence and logical coherence as the basis for scientific judgment.

While consensus may reflect accumulated knowledge, it should never be mistaken for finality. A single, well-supported piece of empirical evidence—or a more comprehensive theoretical model—has the power to overturn a widely accepted view. Scientific consensus, therefore, must remain responsive to dissent and open to re-evaluation.

Unfortunately, the current structure of scientific publishing, peer review, and institutional hierarchy can unintentionally reinforce gatekeeping. Textbooks and public science communication often present dominant theories as settled facts, reinforcing the perception of unchallengeable authority—especially for those outside the research community.

In conclusion, the health of science depends on its commitment to intellectual humility, openness, and methodological rigor. When a scientifically coherent challenge arises, the response should not be one of dismissal or deference to tradition, but of balanced and critical engagement with all premises—old and new alike. Only by adhering to these principles can science fulfil its role as a truly progressive, self-correcting endeavour.

Misconceptions about Universal Simultaneity and Time Experience:

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

May 19, 2925

Claim: "All people from every time period exist right now."

ECM Clarification:

While the concept of a universal "now" may Misconceptions about Universal Simultaneity and Time Experience intuitive, it misrepresents the reality of distributed temporal experiences. Each observer exists within a distinct time zone, with its own local time, environmental conditions, and sequence of events. For example, while it is daytime in one region, it is simultaneously nighttime in another. Thus, "now" does not correspond to a unified set of experiences or events for everyone. The present is not a universal constant; it is relative to the specific location and energy interactions within that zone. The idea that all people from every time exist "now" collapses under the fact that different events define different instances of "now."

Claim: "Everything—past, present, and future—is happening at the same time."

ECM Clarification:

This statement inaccurately compresses dynamic, energy-based events across different regions and time zones into a single temporal frame. What is actually happening is that different events are occurring concurrently but in different time zones, each with distinct local time readings. To equate these with a singular "same time" is misleading—it confuses concurrent existence with temporal uniformity, and falsely resembles the relativistic idea of "time dilation." In ECM, such a claim represents a category error, conflating simultaneity of occurrence with identity of time.

Claim: "There is only one moment; what we call different moments are just the same moment from another point of view."

ECM Clarification:

This notion is conceptually flawed. A single moment from one observer’s perspective cannot be considered identical to that of all others, because observers occupy different positions in space and time, with different energy states and interaction histories. Claiming a universal moment ignores these variances and introduces a double standard: on one hand asserting a singular moment, and on the other allowing multiple perceptions of it. In ECM, there is no justification for a universal moment—each observer has their own valid and distinct temporal reference, shaped by localized energy and motion conditions.

Claim: "Parallel realities are real, they are all stacked on top of each other, happening at once."

ECM Clarification:

If parallel realities exist, they must be understood as having separate time frameworks and potentially different dimensional structures. Events in these realities are not happening at the same moment, because parallel events require parallel time. Suggesting they all occur "at once" conflates spatial coexistence with temporal simultaneity, which is inaccurate. Time, in any given reality, emerges from energy dynamics and spatial interactions, and cannot be universally synchronized across distinct dimensions. The claim reflects a misunderstanding of time as it functions within and across such realities.

Conclusion:

These statements stem from unrealistic generalizations and a neglect of time's relational nature. Under ECM, time is not an absolute background but an emergent result of energy transformations, spatial configurations, and dynamic interactions. Presenting "now" or "moment" as shared across all observers or realities is a misrepresentation of causality, locality, and energy dynamics. Time must be treated respectively and contextually, not universally or abstractly.

How Photons Are Emitted in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM):

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

May 19, 2025

In the framework of Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), photons are emitted when electrons release energy stored in their potential states. This released energy becomes the inherent energy of the photon. Conversely, electrons absorb photons to gain energy and move to higher potential states, demonstrating a reversible energy exchange process. 

In stellar environments, this mechanism is prominently observed. Nuclear fusion reactions in stars generate immense energy, initially in the form of high-energy gamma rays (photons). These photons interact with surrounding atoms, causing their electrons to absorb energy and jump to excited states. As these electrons return to lower or ground states, they re-emit photons of varying energies, cascading down through multiple absorption-emission events. ECM models this entire cycle within classical energy-mass principles, where photon dynamics arise not from quantum probabilities or spacetime curvature, but from deterministic transformations of energy within electromagnetic and gravitational fields.

A photon carries kinetic energy but possesses no positive inertial mass. Instead, its apparent mass is negative (Mᵃᵖᵖ < 0), reflecting the direction and nature of energy transformation in pure motion states. The emission of a photon represents an energetic displacement, where the electron’s loss in potential energy is converted into the photon's kinetic motion.

Beyond this inherent energy from the electron, a photon also gains interactional energy as it climbs out of the gravitational well of its source. ECM describes this process not as a relativistic time dilation, but as a real energetic modulation. The total energy of the photon—observed in its modulated frequency—reaches twice the magnitude of its inherent energy, due to the contribution from the gravitational interaction.

This additional energy is not permanent. As the photon escapes the gravitational field, it gradually expends the interactional energy through gravitational redshift, thereby reducing its frequency and effective kinetic content. This modulation is reversible: if a photon approaches another gravitational well during transit, it experiences gravitational blueshift, temporarily regaining interactional energy. Upon exiting, it again loses that energy as redshift in the same magnitude gained.

Once the photon crosses into the zero-gravity boundary—a spherical zone around the source galaxy where gravitational forces cancel—it retains only its inherent energy, which is no longer replenished. Entering dark-energy-dominated space, this remaining energy is continuously and irreversibly expended as cosmic redshift, a phenomenon that ECM interprets as the final energetic drain of the photon in a gravity-free vacuum.

Scientific Grounding of ECM-Based Photon Dynamics:

The original research on photon dynamics under Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) presents empirically consistent formulations that integrate photon energy, frequency, wavelength, and momentum based on Planck’s energy-frequency relation and de Broglie’s wavelength-momentum equations, interpreted through classical mechanics principles. These formulations are not speculative but are built upon observationally grounded derivations, particularly in relation to the effects of dark energy on galactic clusters by A. D. Chernin et al, and photon acceleration and mass behaviour.

The ECM framework introduces a non-relativistic yet experimentally aligned approach to photon mass—specifically, its apparent and effective mass components—and explains redshift, blueshift, and energy dissipation in terms of real energy transformations rather than spacetime curvature. These findings are not purely theoretical constructs; they are the result of rigorous interpretation of established empirical data through corrected classical principles.

Therefore, the statements derived within this framework—including those presented in the referenced post—should be recognized not as speculative assertions, but as scientifically consistent re-explanations of photon behaviour. They clarify and correct prevailing misconceptions by restoring dynamic mass to classical mechanics and offering a more coherent model for photon interaction across gravitational fields and dark-energy-dominated space.

As such, the ECM-based photon model does not require further empirical verification to validate its internal consistency or observational relevance. Its strength lies in its ability to reinterpret existing data through a unified and testable classical lens, thereby offering a robust alternative to relativistic interpretations.

At the core of the star (Δh = 0), the emitted photon carries only kinetic energy:

Eₜₒₜₐₗ = 2hf

At this point, no gravitational potential energy is associated with the photon. Instead, its energy consists entirely of inherent and interactional kinetic components. This arises because the photon, while often considered massless, is not truly so in the ECM framework. Its dynamic negative apparent mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) possesses inherent kinetic energy, and this also draws interactional kinetic energy from the surrounding gravitational potential field—establishing the photon as an active energy carrier rather than a passive by-product.