Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) as an Alternative Framework for Cosmological Anomalies:

April 01, 2025

Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) might provide alternative explanations for the listed cosmological anomalies, focusing on its core principles: negative apparent mass (-Mᵃᵖᵖ), effective mass (Mᵉᶠᶠ), and energy-mass interactions.

1. Redshift vs. Luminosity Distance (Accelerated Expansion & Dark Energy Alternative)

ECM Interpretation:

Cosmological redshift is linked to the decreasing magnitude of negative apparent mass (-Mᵃᵖᵖ) over time, rather than a vacuum energy-driven expansion.

Instead of dark energy, the observed acceleration emerges from a progressive reduction in the effective gravitational influence of mass across cosmic scales.

The decreasing density of negative apparent mass affects the force balance in cosmic structures, leading to an apparent acceleration of recession velocities.

Key Equation Reference:

z ∝ ∆Mᵃᵖᵖ/Mᵉᶠᶠ

where ∆Mᵃᵖᵖ represents the time-evolving negative apparent mass.

2. The Faint Blue Galaxy Problem (Disappearing Galaxies)

ECM Interpretation:

Instead of galaxies "disappearing," their light is altered by gravitational energy interactions with evolving negative apparent mass.

Distant galaxies' light experiences an effective mass decay effect, reducing observable luminosity.

This avoids the need for ad-hoc explanations like selective extinction or drastic evolution in galaxy populations.

3. Dark Matter Cusp Problem (Unnatural Dark Matter Halos in Galaxies)

ECM Interpretation:

Negative apparent mass, acting as an energy-based counterforce, naturally explains the observed velocity profiles in galaxies.

Instead of requiring exotic dark matter, ECM suggests that -Mᵃᵖᵖ dynamically modifies the effective gravitational field.

The transition from inner to outer galactic regions is governed by:

Mᵉᶠᶠ = Mᴍ − Mᵃᵖᵖ

 

which leads to observed flat rotation curves without needing arbitrary dark matter distributions.

4. Local Galaxy Counts (Local "Hole" in Galaxy Distribution)

ECM Interpretation:

Instead of assuming a real under density, ECM suggests that observational limitations arise from energy-based distortions.

A region with higher concentrations of -Mᵃᵖᵖ could influence the perception of mass distributions, leading to apparent under densities in surveys.

5. Horizon Problem (Inflation Alternative)

ECM Interpretation:

The early universe’s apparent uniformity is not due to an inflationary phase but to effective mass-energy interactions smoothing early fluctuations.

The presence of negative apparent mass in the early universe provided a stabilizing counterforce, naturally leading to homogeneous conditions over large scales without requiring superluminal expansion.

6. Size of Distant Objects (Cosmic Evolution Effects)

ECM Interpretation:

The sizes of early-universe structures appear anomalous due to changes in effective mass and gravitational interactions over time.

This avoids assumptions of drastic structural evolution and instead relies on the evolving nature of -Mᵃᵖᵖ to explain observed discrepancies.

7. Planck σ₈ Problem (Sterile Neutrinos Alternative)

ECM Interpretation:

Instead of invoking hypothetical sterile neutrinos, ECM suggests that variations in -Mᵃᵖᵖ across cosmic structures lead to inconsistencies in observed large-scale density fluctuations.

These inconsistencies arise from differential effective mass contributions rather than requiring additional particle species.

8. Hemispherical Power Asymmetry & Directional Dependence of Cosmological Constants

ECM Interpretation:

The observed asymmetry may stem from an uneven distribution of -Mᵃᵖᵖ across cosmic scales.

If -Mᵃᵖᵖ exhibits directional dependence, it would naturally lead to variations in observed cosmic properties.

9. The Dark Flow (Interaction with Another Universe?)

ECM Interpretation:

Instead of requiring external universe interactions, ECM suggests that anisotropic -Mᵃᵖᵖ distributions could drive observed bulk flows.

This internal explanation avoids the need for speculative extradimensional influences.

10. CMB Cold Spots (Massive Voids Alternative)

ECM Interpretation:

The presence of negative apparent mass in certain regions would modify the energy distribution of the CMB without requiring massive voids.

This explains anomalies as energy-based effects rather than large-scale structure deficiencies.

Summary:

Rather than relying on dark matter, dark energy, inflation, or unknown particles, ECM explains anomalies by considering:

The evolving role of negative apparent mass (-Mᵃᵖᵖ) and how it interacts with matter.

The impact of effective mass (Mᵉᶠᶠ) on gravity, redshift, and energy-mass transformations.

A more dynamic force-energy framework that replaces static assumptions in standard cosmology.

This provides a cohesive, empirically grounded alternative to many of the speculative postulates in modern cosmology.

Alphabetical list of the mathematical terms: 

1. ∆Mᵃᵖᵖ: Change in Negative Apparent Mass. 
2.  Mᵃᵖᵖ: Negative Apparent Mass
3. Mᴍ: Matter Mass, including the mass of dark matter.
4. Mᵉᶠᶠ: Effective Mass
5. σ8: Matter Density Fluctuation Parameter 
6. z: Redshift

A Response to Mr. Mikhail Nikolaevich Mashkin

April 01, 2025

Dear Mr. Mashkin, 

Your assertion that "Space is not emptiness. The properties of space determine the duration and extent of the passage of light in it." appears to stem from a fundamental misinterpretation of space and its nature. 

Space, in itself, does not possess intrinsic properties that influence the passage of light. Instead, it is a conceptual framework—an abstract, emergent construct that provides a stage for physical entities such as energy and mass. The existence of energy and mass defines the interactions within space, but space itself remains an absence—a void that does not independently impose properties on light propagation. 

If space were to inherently possess energy density, it would cease to be space in the proper sense and would instead be a medium with material characteristics. However, the observed behavior of light is influenced by actual physical presence—such as gravitational fields or electromagnetic interactions—not by space as an entity in itself. Thus, the claim that "the duration of the passage of light and the extent of the passage of light are directly proportional to the energy density of space" conflates the role of space with the influences of material presence within it. 

Similarly, your interpretation that the speed of light is independent of the observer due to photons moving in two-dimensional space is inconsistent with the principles governing physical interactions. A photon’s trajectory is a function of energy-mass interactions within the three-dimensional framework in which it propagates, not an abstract mapping onto a two-dimensional space. The notion of emission and absorption regions does not necessitate a two-dimensional motion but rather a description of energetic exchange within an extended spatial framework. 

Furthermore, time is not a property of space but an emergent hyperdimensional construct that began with the onset of the universal event known as the Big Bang. Unlike spatial dimensions, time possesses a hyper dimensionality that makes events within its scope permanently imperceptible and non-interactable for entities confined within three-dimensional space. This distinction invalidates any interpretation of time as merely another spatial parameter. 

Thus, the foundation of your claims regarding space, light, and time is inherently inconsistent, leading to further discrepancies in the conclusions derived from them. A more rigorous framework—grounded in the distinction between space as an abstract construct and the actual physical entities that influence measurable properties—must be considered for a coherent understanding of these phenomena.

Best Regards 
Soumendra Nath Thakur 

The Inconsistency of Relativistic Spacetime Curvature in an Expanding Universe:

March 31, 2025

A fundamental contradiction arises when considering the relativistic interpretation of spacetime curvature alongside the widely accepted notion of cosmic expansion. In general relativity, gravity is not treated as a force but as the manifestation of spacetime curvature caused by massive bodies. However, if spacetime itself is expanding—stretching at cosmological scales—then the very fabric that supposedly curves under gravitational influence is in a state of dynamic transformation.  

This presents an unavoidable paradox: how can spacetime maintain a stable and well-defined curvature around massive bodies if it is simultaneously undergoing large-scale expansion? If spacetime curvature is a tangible, physical distortion as relativity claims, then it should be subject to deformation or attenuation as the fabric of spacetime stretches. This would imply that local gravitational wells formed by massive bodies should either weaken or morph unpredictably over time. Yet, no such effects are observed. Instead, gravitational interactions remain stable and consistent over cosmic timescales, a characteristic that aligns more with a classical gravitational field than a malleable spacetime fabric.  

Moreover, if the curvature of spacetime were truly a fundamental and rigid aspect of general relativity, then the expansion of spacetime should also stretch or distort these curvatures in a manner that would be empirically measurable. However, relativists make no such allowances; they conveniently separate local spacetime curvature (due to gravity) from large-scale cosmic expansion, even though both supposedly affect the same underlying spacetime. This selective treatment of relativistic curvature exposes a significant inconsistency: spacetime curvature is treated as physically real when describing gravity, yet as an abstract mathematical construct when dealing with cosmic expansion.  

In contrast, classical mechanics and ECM provide a more consistent framework where gravity operates through a force-based field that is not inherently tied to the expansion of space itself. This eliminates the paradox of having a dynamically stretching medium that simultaneously holds stable curvatures, reinforcing the idea that the relativistic model of spacetime curvature is an opportunistic construct rather than a physically coherent reality.

The Geometric Inconsistency of Relativistic Gravitational Lensing:

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

March 31, 2025

Steve Brunelle,

You asked, "What the hell?"—so here’s your answer: The "hell" lies in your misunderstanding of my earlier comment.  

You further question the relationship between classical mechanics' interpretation of gravity (as exerted by physical mass) and relativistic space curvature. That misunderstanding leads you to overlook a critical fact: Classical mechanics consistently interprets gravity as a force creating a gravitational field, which in turn bends the path of light. In contrast, relativity proposes that light bends due to the curvature of spacetime—an interpretation that is fundamentally flawed.  

The Geometric Discrepancy in Light Bending: 

A nuanced geometric explanation exposes the opportunistic nature of relativity’s claim that light bends due to spacetime curvature, while it simultaneously misrepresents the classical mechanics' interpretation of gravitational lensing.  

1. Classical mechanics' gravitational field extends beyond the physical boundary of a massive body, allowing light to be deflected as it travels through the field. This is a geometrically consistent model, as the extended gravitational influence enables light to pass around the massive object and reach the observer.  

2. Relativity's spacetime curvature, however, is in direct physical contact with the massive body itself. Since relativity describes spacetime as a natural fabric that bends under mass, it implies that light should be obstructed rather than deflected—because the massive body would rest directly on the "bent" fabric of spacetime, blocking light from passing through. This presents a geometric contradiction within relativity’s framework.  

Thus, the relativistic model fails to provide a self-consistent geometric explanation for gravitational lensing. Instead, relativists opportunistically rely on the classical mechanics' force-based gravitational field interpretation while claiming to uphold spacetime curvature. This contradiction exposes the flawed nature of relativistic gravitational lensing, which is nothing more than an opportunistic misappropriation of classical mechanics.

Einstein’s Inconsistencies in Relativity and the Opportunistic Interpretation of Spacetime:

Soumendra Nath Thakur

March 30, 2025

Einstein formulated gravity as a consequence of spacetime curvature rather than a force. However, when Hubble's observations confirmed that the universe was expanding, Einstein did not revise his theory to accommodate this discovery consistently. Instead, he withdrew the cosmological constant (Λ) from his General Relativity equations, as it was originally introduced to maintain a static universe—an assumption later proven incorrect.

Thus, the Lambda (Λ)-CDM model which is based on the FLRW metric, includes the cosmological constant (Λ), measured to be approximately (2.1 ± 0.1) × 10⁻⁵² m⁻². This can also be expressed as 10⁻³⁵ s⁻² by multiplying with c² ≈ 10¹⁷ m²⋅s⁻²), or equivalently as 10⁻¹²² ℓP⁻², where ℓP is the Planck length.

Despite this, Einstein did not refine the interpretation of time dilation or curved space to align with new empirical findings. Had he done so, it would have required incorporating aspects of Classical Mechanics' gravitational framework, which might have undermined Relativity itself. The claim that Einstein "would have known about Dark Matter and Energy" is misleading. Dark energy, now linked to the cosmological constant, was never intended to describe an expanding universe; rather, it was a mathematical fix to prevent a static universe from collapsing.

Modern relativists attempt to validate Einstein’s theory by promoting biased and misrepresented experimental results. Instead of acknowledging frequency distortion as the cause of perceived time distortion, they insist on time dilation as an intrinsic property of spacetime. Furthermore, they opportunistically conflate the classical interpretation of a curved gravitational field with spacetime curvature, despite fundamental inconsistencies in such a representation. This behavior lacks intellectual honesty.