21 July 2025
Frequency and Energy in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM):
Comparative Analysis Report: Terry McMahon's Reformulations vs. Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) Framework.
Prepared by: Soumendra Nath Thakur
ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803
Date: July 21, 2025
Scholarly Cross-Comparison Now Live: Read on ResearchGate
Introduction
This report offers a focused, point-by-point comparative analysis between the reformulated physics approach proposed by Terry McMahon in his 2025 paper, Quantum gravity, special relativity & unification QGSM, and the Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) framework developed independently. Both approaches challenge the foundations of relativity and quantum field theory, offering energy-centric alternatives to spacetime geometry and abstract force-carrying entities. Despite different terminologies, the two share foundational similarities as well as critical divergences.
Comparative Summary Table
Key Theme | Terry McMahon's View | ECM View | Commentary |
---|---|---|---|
Lorentz Factor & SR | Lorentz transformation introduces non-physical frame effects. Replaced with an index-based formulation. | SR time dilation is rejected; frequency governs Δt. Frame effects arise from energy-frequency shift, not geometry. | Both reject the Lorentz factor and spacetime-based time dilation. ECM emphasizes frequency displacement instead of dynamic index. |
Photon Mass | Photons possess momentum → they must have mass. Mass evolves from bound (<c) to liberated (at c). | Photon/gamma ray emission represents displaced apparent mass (−Mapp), hence carries effective mass component. | Both assert non-zero mass association for free photons. ECM frames this via mass-displacement (ΔMM). |
Planck Constant | Δf varies with energy scale. Not truly constant. | k = 5.558 x 10−34 Js derived in ECM as fundamental, linked to f0. | McMahon sees h as dynamic; ECM anchors a similar constant as derived from f0 via energetic continuity. |
Gravity Mechanism | G is dimensionally flawed; gravity is energy density dependent, not geometric. | Gravity is mass-binding confinement of Meff; anti-gravity is liberated Mapp. No curved space required. | Both reject GR's geometry. ECM formalizes the binding/release mechanism through energy-mass structuring. |
Gravitons & Fields | Gravitons unnecessary; field theory flawed. | No graviton; no field quantization. All transitions are real, observable mass shifts (ΔMM). | Total agreement on non-necessity of virtual field carriers. |
Time & Causality | SR's time is geometrical fiction; proper time must emerge from energy-frequency behaviour. | Time is derived as f0; real dynamics follow frequency shift, not relativistic time. | McMahon calls for time redefinition; ECM implements it via f → Δt transformation. |
Quantum Gravity | Must emerge from internal energy distributions, not curved spacetime. | ECM sees gravity and anti-gravity as reversible via ΔMM-mediated transitions. | Agreement in rejecting geometrisation in favour of physical transitions. |
Unification of Forces | Energy-scaled parameters (running parameters) unify EM and gravity. | Mass-frequency correspondence allows unification without particle mediation. | Parallel strategies: dynamic parameters vs. frequency-mass equivalence. |
Resistance from Academia | Journals resist anti-relativistic reformulations. | ECM development has been independent due to similar institutional resistance. | Shared experience of marginalization for paradigm-challenging frameworks. |
Conclusion
Terry McMahon's reformulations and the ECM framework arrive independently at converging conclusions: spacetime curvature is not fundamental, time is emergent from energy behaviour, and photons are not massless. Where McMahon uses "running parameters," ECM formalizes transitions using mass-displacement (ΔMM), effective and apparent mass (Meff, Mapp), and frequency (f) as foundational. This comparative insight opens the door to potential synthesis or mutual reinforcement of both models under a shared principle of energy-centric realism.
Intellectual debate fosters a deeper and more accurate understanding for everything.
July 21, 2025
This statement underscores the transformative power of engaging with diverse perspectives through reasoned discourse. When individuals with differing viewpoints engage in intellectual debate, it's not merely about winning an argument, but about a collaborative process of inquiry.
Through this process, assumptions are challenged, logical inconsistencies are exposed, and ideas are rigorously tested against alternative interpretations and evidence. Participants are compelled to articulate their positions with greater clarity, to consider counter-arguments, and to integrate new information that might refine or even alter their original understanding. This dynamic exchange moves beyond superficial comprehension, leading to a more nuanced, comprehensive, and ultimately, more accurate grasp of the subject matter, whatever it may be. It's a continuous cycle of questioning, defending, learning, and evolving one's understanding.
- Soumendra Nath Thakur