02 July 2025

Complementarity of Dynamic and Apparent Mass in ECM: (ΔMᴍ ↔ Mᵃᵖᵖ)

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

A core interpretive principle within ECM is the complementarity between dynamic mass displacement (ΔMᴍ) and apparent mass (Mᵃᵖᵖ). These quantities are not merely opposites in algebraic sign, but mutually defining constructs that gain physical significance only in relation to one another.

For example:

ΔMᴍ represents the emergent or emitted mass-equivalent energy due to frequency scaling, as in:

hf = ΔMᴍ c²

Mᵃᵖᵖ = −ΔMᴍ captures the corresponding loss or reduction in apparent mass from the source system.

This mutual dependence mirrors other foundational complements in nature:

Black and white as absence and presence of light

Potential and kinetic energy in transition

Finite and infinite as relational constructs

In ECM, neither ΔMᴍ nor Mᵃᵖᵖ has causal validity in isolation. It is their interaction—seen in transformations like:

KEᴇᴄᴍ = −Mᵃᵖᵖ c ² or ΔMᴍ = hf / c²

—that defines real physical outcomes such as radiation, gravitational weakening, and cosmic expansion.

This principle of complementarity reinforces ECM's broader stance: that energy and mass, emergence and loss, are not independent absolutes, but relational constructs whose meaning arises through causal symmetry.

Summary

ECM restores physical continuity and causality by linking frequency to mass-energy emergence, rejecting singularities and probabilistic quantum behavior. Its structural pillars are:

Frequency-scaling of force, energy, and displacement

Nonlinear collapse at Planck thresholds

Energetic boundary formation instead of metric expansion

Deterministic time onset defined by 

This unified interpretation enables ECM to model dynamics across photon, collapse, and cosmological scales with logical continuity and dimensional precision

Pre-relativistic framework and ECM:

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Relativity is not necessary for the very phenomena it is often praised for explaining. In truth, it diverted science away from rational foundations by introducing dilatable time and curved, blended space — abstraction that complicate rather than clarifying physical reality.

The pre-relativistic framework was already sufficient to support a more consistent and physically intuitive understanding of the universe. What was needed was not a leap into spacetime distortion, but a deeper refinement of classical principles.

This is where Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) comes in — a framework with the potential to restore coherence and rational causality to physics. Once fully explored, ECM may well demonstrate that relativity’s perceived necessity was a historical detour, not a scientific inevitability.