Relativistic re-interpretation of curvature in spacetime:

Soumendra Nath Thakur

December 29, 2024

Photons do not possess rest mass, but this does not imply they lack effective mass. In fact, photons have an effective mass given by m_eff = E/c ^2 . Moreover, photons exhibit a negative apparent mass, which exceeds their matter mass, resulting in a net negative effective mass.

This negative effective mass generates an anti-gravitational force, enabling photons to escape gravitational wells.

The idea of spacetime curvature as a manifestation of gravity fundamentally contradicts the concept of gravity as a classical force. Both concepts—gravity as a force and gravity as spacetime curvature—cannot simultaneously hold validity in scientific reasoning.

Experimental evidence and observations strongly support gravity as a force, while the notion of physical spacetime curvature producing tangible gravitational effects lacks empirical grounding. The concept of spacetime curvature stems from speculative assumptions rather than validated scientific principles.

Since no human can physically realize or measure spacetime curvature, the relativistic interpretation of gravity should be reconsidered, favoring a framework grounded in observable and verifiable phenomena.

Analytical Insights into Time Dilation and Time Distortion:

Soumendra Nath Thakur

December 28, 2024

Abstract

This study, Analytical Insights into Time Dilation and Time Distortion, provides a critical examination of the relativistic and conceptual interpretations of time, serving as a supplementary resource to the research titled Effect of Wavelength Dilation in Time - About Time and Wavelength Dilation. It investigates the distinction between time dilation—a relativistic phenomenon—and time distortion, a conceptual deviation defined as t±Δt, which accommodates both dilation and contraction.

Time dilation, introduced in Einstein’s theory of relativity, describes the difference in elapsed time observed between two reference frames due to relative velocity or gravitational effects. Conversely, time distortion highlights perceived temporal alterations caused by measurement inaccuracies rather than fundamental changes in time itself. This study emphasizes that relativistic time dilation (t′) does not equate to time distortion (±Δt), as t′≠±Δt, underscoring the distinct scientific frameworks of these concepts.

The research also explores time measurement within the standardized 360° framework of clocks, which provides a geometric and intuitive structure for representing temporal progression. This framework ensures uniformity, with 30° corresponding to an hour, 6° to a minute, and 6° to a second, maintaining consistency across temporal units. However, the study identifies inherent challenges in reconciling time dilation and contraction within this fixed framework, exposing limitations in accommodating relativistic variations.

Further critique of Einstein’s relativistic framework challenges its dominance in physics, suggesting that perceived changes in time’s progression are better understood as errors in time measurement. By prioritizing localized relativistic effects, the theory inadvertently overlooks the intrinsic constancy and uniformity of cosmic time—a universal continuum governing natural processes.

Lastly, the study connects time with oscillatory motion through the expression T=2π/ω, linking time to energy and frequency via Planck’s constant. This reinforces the broader physical understanding of time as a fundamental dimension tied to energy and motion, surpassing the constraints of relativistic interpretations.

This work, grounded in theoretical critique and geometric representation, provides a nuanced perspective on time, challenging established relativistic paradigms while advancing the discourse on temporal measurement and interpretation.

Comment: This study is a supplementary resource of the research titled, "Effect of Wavelength Dilation in Time. - About Time and Wavelength Dilation."

In the framework of special relativity, time dilation refers to the difference in elapsed time as measured by two observers, typically arising from differences in relative velocity or gravitational influence. For example, a clock in motion relative to an observer appears to tick more slowly than one at rest. This physical phenomenon, first introduced by Albert Einstein, has been central to relativistic physics for decades.

On the other hand, time distortion, represented mathematically as t±Δt, encapsulates the notion of perceived temporal alteration, where Δt can signify either an increase or decrease in time’s progression relative to a reference frame. Time dilation and time distortion are distinct: relativistic time dilation (t′) does not equate to ±Δt, as t′ ≠ ±Δt. Specifically, time dilation (t′) involves a systematic slowing of time for a moving observer, while time distortion implies a bidirectional deviation (either dilation or contraction), potentially leading to inaccuracies in time measurement.

This distinction highlights a critical issue: the direct comparison of t′ with ±Δt is scientifically incorrect. Time dilation is a relativistic effect described within the confines of Einstein’s theory, whereas time distortion relates to deviations observed in standardized timekeeping.

Time Measurement and the 360° Framework

Clocks are meticulously designed using standardized mechanisms to represent universal time (e.g., Coordinated Universal Time, UTC) with precision and consistency. Each ideal clock is calibrated to measure proper time (t), the temporal progression experienced in its local inertial frame. Within the standardized 360° framework of timekeeping:

• Each 30° segment represents one hour, completing a 12-hour cycle in 360° (30°×12=360°).

• Each 6° segment signifies one minute, culminating in 60 minutes per 360° (6°×60=360°).

• Similarly, each 6° division also denotes one second, amounting to 60 seconds per minute (6°=360°/60).

This geometric division ensures a consistent and intuitive representation of time across all temporal units, maintaining uniformity within the standardized clock framework.

The Inherent Challenges of Time Dilation and Contraction

The concept of time dilation inherently implies its counterpart—time contraction—when the conditions inducing dilation are reversed. However, this duality presents a contradiction: the scale of time (Δt) must remain constant. Any deviation, whether dilation (t′>t) or contraction (t′<t), introduces inaccuracies in measurement, as standard clock mechanisms are incapable of accommodating such variations.

• A dilated time scale (Δt+t′) exceeds the standardized cycle, disrupting uniformity.

• A contracted time scale (Δt-t′) falls short of completing the temporal framework, leading to incomplete cycles.

For instance, a clock face, operating within a fixed 360° framework, symbolizes the uniform progression of time. A dilated time cannot fit seamlessly into this cycle, while a contracted time fails to complete it. These discrepancies reveal the limitations of relativistic interpretations, which focus on clock time rather than the broader, unaltered continuum of cosmic time.

Critique of Relativistic Time

Einstein’s relativistic framework replaced the classical interpretation of time, emphasizing time dilation and its dependence on motion and gravity. While this paradigm dominated physics for decades, contemporary insights suggest that time does not dilate as proposed by relativity. Instead, any perceived alteration in time’s natural progression is better understood as an error in time measurement, not an actual modification of time itself.

Relativistic interpretations emphasize clock time but fail to account for the essence of cosmic time—the universal, unaltered continuum governing the natural universe. By prioritizing localized relativistic effects, these interpretations inadvertently diverge from the intrinsic uniformity and constancy of cosmic time.

Time and Oscillatory Motion

In physics, time (T) is often linked to the period of oscillation, defined as T=2π/ω, where ω is the angular frequency. The reciprocal of the period, or frequency (f), is given by f=1/T=ω/2π=v/λ=E/h, where h is Planck’s constant, and f, v, λ, T, and E represent frequency, velocity, wavelength, time period, and energy, respectively.

This connection underscores the fundamental nature of time as a dimension intimately tied to motion and energy, offering a broader perspective that transcends the limitations of relativistic time dilation.

Reference:

[1] Thakur, S. N. & Tagore’s Electronic Lab. (2023). Effect of Wavelength Dilation in Time. - About Time and Wavelength Dilation. In EasyChair Preprint. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34715.64808

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

The contrast between gravitational lensing and Plasma interaction of photon:

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

December 26, 2924

Gravitational lensing, as the term suggests, arises from the interaction between electromagnetic radiation (photons) and a gravitational field. Specifically, it involves the symmetric energetic interaction of photons with the gravitational field, resulting in balanced blueshifts and redshifts of the photon’s energy. This symmetry causes the photon’s trajectory to curve, deviating from its linear path during transit through the gravitational field. Once the photon exits the field, it retains its energy and resumes its inherent linear trajectory.

The question of whether energetic plasma can cause gravitational lensing must be examined by understanding how photons interact with ionized gas during transit. Unlike the photon-gravitational field interaction, which is energetically symmetric, the interaction between photons and ionized plasma is fundamentally different. This is an electromagnetic-electromagnetic interaction where photons interact with charged particles (electrons and ions) via electromagnetic forces.

Such interactions are inherently asymmetric and often involve absorption, scattering, or redistribution of photon energy due to the charged nature of plasma constituents. Consequently, these processes result in photon scattering rather than the curvature of the photon’s path seen in gravitational lensing.

While hot plasma may facilitate symmetric energy exchanges, it primarily causes photon scattering rather than maintaining the conditions necessary for gravitational lensing. This distinction highlights that the nature of photon interactions with ionized plasma differs fundamentally from the interaction with a gravitational field.

Electrons and ions, due to their electric charge, always interact with photons via electromagnetic forces. However, this interaction leads to scattering and absorption, making it unlikely that hot plasma could produce the phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

In conclusion, photon interaction with a gravitational field and photon interaction with ionized plasma are fundamentally different processes. Gravitational lensing remains a unique phenomenon tied to the symmetric energetic interaction of photons with gravitational fields, distinct from the asymmetric scattering processes characteristic of plasma interactions.

Re-interpretation of relativistic gravitational lensing:

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

December 26, 2024

Your comments suggest a limited understanding of the principles of physical science. Your preconceived notions prevent you from appreciating advancements in physics, particularly the importance of falsifiability in scientific progress. This stagnation renders your studies scientifically unproductive, as progress requires an openness to revise established ideas.

A stagnant river collects decay, much like stagnant thinking in science accumulating outdated ideas.

Your adherence to traditional interpretations of relativity overlooks critical flaws. For example, in relativity, gravity is understood as the consequence of spacetime curvature. This means that the bending of light, described as gravitational lensing, is attributed to spacetime curvature rather than an actual gravitational field. Since relativity posits gravity as an effect of curvature rather than a force, gravitational lensing in this framework should be referred to as curvature lensing, not a consequence of a gravitational field.

However, observational evidence suggests that the bending of light is due to the interaction of photons with the gravitational field itself, not with spacetime curvature. Thus, the relativistic explanation of gravitational lensing as a product of spacetime curvature is fundamentally flawed. Instead, gravitational lensing arises from the curvature within gravitational fields, as this better aligns with empirical observations.

Your assertion that I have 'never studied physics' reflects a misunderstanding of my arguments and an inability to critically engage with the limitations of relativity. It is essential to recognize that progress in science depends on identifying and addressing such foundational inconsistencies. The relativistic framework for gravitational lensing relies on spacetime curvature, yet the evidence points to gravitational field interactions as the actual cause. This discrepancy undermines the relativistic model of gravitational lensing and highlights the necessity of revisiting its foundational assumptions.

Clarification of Concepts in Relativistic Mass, Energy, and Length Contraction:

Soumendra Nath Thakur

December, 26, 2024

The notion of "variation in mass with velocity" is addressed as a misunderstanding. The research framework "Relativistic Mass and Energy Equivalence: Energetic Form of Relativistic Mass in Special Relativity" does not discuss any variation in rest mass. Instead, it introduces the concepts of effective mass and apparent mass as energetic constructs. These terms describe variations in energy, not mass, and do not imply changes to the invariant rest mass.

The idea that particles such as neutrons, protons, and electrons behave as "looped waves in the medium of space" is speculative. Unlike massless photons, massive particles remain stationary within gravitationally bound systems unless influenced by external forces. Their behaviour cannot be directly associated with the relationship E=hf, as this applies to electromagnetic waves. For massive particles, E=mc² governs the conversion of rest mass into energy through nuclear processes and does not involve motion or conversion into pure frequencies.

The assertion that "The change in frequency affects the mass through E=hf" reflects a misconception. E=hf pertains to electromagnetic waves and describes variations in electromagnetic energy rather than mass. It is distinct from E=mc², and the equivalence between hf and mc² does not apply.

Similarly, the suggestion that "the change in wavelength is the cause of length contraction" conflates unrelated concepts. Object length is not analogous to wavelength. Relativistic length contraction is a distinct phenomenon that can be compared to classical mechanics length deformation under Hooke's law. However, the relativistic model relies on the Lorentz factor and often omits classical considerations such as material stiffness and acceleration, potentially leading to less precise predictions than classical deformation theory.

In the relativistic framework, relativistic mass is expressed as m = γm₀, where γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²). This relativistic mass is an energetic quantity distinct from proper (rest) mass, which remains invariant.

The study emphasizes that no variation in inertial mass is proposed. Instead, the variability of effective mass and apparent mass as energetic forms is central to describing the dynamics of energy systems within the scope of Extended Classical Mechanics.