Defining gravity in ECM as a reversible, quantifiable mass-binding condition, and anti-gravity as the observable by-product of its natural release, without invoking theoretical particles or speculative geometries.
Posted by: Soumendra Nath Thakur Date: July 11, 2025
Introduction
Electrons within atoms occupy discrete, quantized energy levels or orbital. When an electron transitions from a higher to a lower energy level, it emits a photon whose energy precisely corresponds to the difference between those two levels. Similarly, gamma rays are emitted during nuclear reactions or radioactive decay, where an unstable atomic nucleus transitions from a higher energy state to a more stable configuration—releasing energy in the form of high-frequency radiation.
A deeper insight emerges when we examine the gravitational character of these bound states. In their confined forms—within atomic orbital or nuclear potentials—both photons (associated with electrons) and gamma rays (associated with nuclei) exist under gravitationally bound conditions. These energy carriers remain internally restrained within their systems, behaving in accordance with gravitationally massive entities.
Yet, upon their emission, both photons and gamma rays exhibit behaviour fundamentally different from their previous state. Once liberated, they no longer remain subject to the same gravitational constraints. They carry momentum, propagate at the speed of light, and resist classical gravitational capture. This transformation—from a gravitationally bound regime to a liberated, anti-gravitational state—is not driven by external intervention, but rather by an intrinsic energy redistribution governed by a mass-energy restructuring process.
Core ECM Proposition
In ECM, both thermal emission and the photoelectric effect represent the release of electrons as free carriers through a ∆Mᴍ-mediated mass displacement. The same ΔMᴍ displacement governs photon and gamma ray emission, where:
KEᴇᴄᴍ =½Mᵉᶠᶠv² = −ΔPEᴇᴄᴍ = −ΔMᴍc²
The emitted photon or gamma ray thus encapsulates a shift from gravitationally bound apparent mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) to an effectively antigravitational state. In this view, ΔMᴍ acts as the fundamental mechanism linking gravitational confinement and liberated kinetic or radiative expression.
A Unified Mass-Energy Displacement Framework
ECM shows that electron transitions, photon emission, and nuclear decay are not merely energetic but mass-displacement events. These transitions involve the reversible conversion of potential energy into kinetic or radiative form via:
KEᴇᴄᴍ = ½Mᵉᶠᶠv² = -ΔPEᴇᴄᴍ= -ΔMᴍc²
As such, mechanical motion, variations in gravitational potential, and the emergence of anti-gravitational effects are all unified outcomes of the same ΔMᴍ-based transition.
Gravity and Anti-Gravity: A Reversible Mass-Energy Continuum
In ECM, gravity is not a force mediated by a graviton, nor a by-product of geometric curvature. It is defined as a mass-binding condition, governed by the confinement of mass-energy within an effective gravitational structure. Anti-gravity, in turn, is not a repulsive force but the empirical result of liberated −Mᵃᵖᵖ.
This redefinition can be organized into four interrelated concepts:
1. Gravitational Confinement as Apparent Mass Structuring
Bound systems (atoms, nuclei, or cosmological structures) are characterized by:
Ebound = Mᵉᶠᶠ gᵉᶠᶠ h
Here, Mᵉᶠᶠis the effective mass during confinement, and gᵉᶠᶠthe effective gravitational field strength.
2. Liberation Through Apparent Mass Displacement (ΔMᴍ)
Transitions such as electronic relaxation or nuclear decay cause:
ΔMᴍ= hf/c², with hf = −Mᵃᵖᵖc²
The displaced −Mᵃᵖᵖrepresents the gravitationally confined mass now expressed in radiative form.
3. No Need for Gravitons or Curved Geometry
The gravitational-to-antigravitational transition is physically observable and testable:
- Thermal emission (e.g., thermionic emission),
- Photoelectric effect,
- Atomic and nuclear transitions,
- Cosmic-scale mass-energy redistribution (as discussed in ECM Appendices 9, 10, 12, 16, and 22).
4. Gravity and Anti-Gravity as Reversible States
These are not two forces, but two phases of the same energy system:
- Gravitational confinement → Mᵉᶠᶠ
- Liberation → −Mᵃᵖᵖ
- Transition mechanism → ΔMᴍ
This framework seamlessly explains both quantum emissions and cosmic expansion, with no dependence on speculative fields or hypothetical particles.
Conclusion
This ECM-based redefinition of gravity as a reversible, mass-binding condition, and anti-gravity as the observable product of its natural release, offers a unified physical interpretation for both subatomic and cosmological processes. It bridges gravitational and radiative dynamics under a single framework of apparent mass displacement.
I invite feedback, challenges, and cross-disciplinary perspectives to advance this conversation further.
Best regards, Soumendra Nath Thakur ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803
It would be a good idea to learn general relativity, instead of re-inventing the wheel.
@Stam Nicolis,
Your comment suggests that I need to “learn general relativity,” but it appears you may have overlooked the essence of my critique. My work does not stem from a lack of understanding of relativity, but from a deeper interdisciplinary examination that reveals fundamental issues with the assumptions behind relativistic time dilation and the notion of spacetime curvature.
Contrary to your implication, my challenge arises precisely because I have studied general relativity thoroughly—enough to identify conceptual inconsistencies that often go unquestioned within its framework.
By integrating broader physical principles and mathematical reasoning, I have articulated why certain relativistic interpretations, though elegant, may be physically incomplete or even flawed.
Your remark unfortunately reflects a common tendency to dismiss critique by presuming ignorance rather than engaging with the substance of the argument. I invite you to approach these discussions with openness to foundational inquiry, which is central to scientific progress.
Best regards,
Soumendra Nath Thakur
Further, @Stam Nicolis
My analysis applies principles from a broader range of physics disciplines beyond just relativity, which I reckon reveals nuances and potential inconsistencies not typically addressed within a purely relativistic framework.
My investigations suggest that the conventional interpretations of time dilation and curved spacetime may have fundamental flaws. I've been able to identify these areas by deeply engaging with general relativity, and then cross-referencing its tenets with a wider understanding of fundamental physics and mathematics.
Perhaps a more comprehensive understanding of these broader foundational principles would illuminate your reasoning behind my conclusions regarding relativistic inconsistencies.
Best regards,
Soumendra Nath Thakur
Soumendra Nath Thakur
Hi Soumendra, you're quite right about the dismissal of any challenge as implicitly flawed before examining the argument.
You are correct that the mechanisms of general and special relativity are flawed, the latter via the Lorentz factor. I have found that most dimensional parameters run linearly with energy at c, but non-linearly < c. If the Lorentz factor is removed and replaced with an index, the awkward notion of massless photons disappears. Photons have momentum, thus mass. Mass changes from within a bound state (< c) to its free state at c or as close to it as the media through which it propagates allows.
Anyway my findings are at DOI:10.22541/au.175087018.88558419/v1
GR has issues since gravity includes mass, i.e. curvature locally for a wave-particle duality, dimensions for G are incorrect (a throw over from Newtonian concept of gravity as a force), so it is a close approximation only.
I challenge SR and go to some lengths showing why it is wrong (frame effects bestowed upon the particle), so I believe your references to apparent or effective mass relate to real mass. The Planck constant runs with energy, causing a problem for SR also.
When running parameters are applied, gravity & electromagnetism become unified and many of the anomalies within the standard model are resolved. Most journals are too spineless to entertain challenges to relativity.
Good luck with your research.
regards, Terry
Dear Mr. Terry McMahon,
Thank you very much for your detailed and thoughtful engagement with my ECM-based formulation of gravity and anti-gravity. Your response affirms the necessity of genuine intellectual exchange, especially when it comes to exploring alternatives beyond the orthodox frameworks of general relativity (GR) and special relativity (SR). Allow me to reflect on your points and, where appropriate, clarify how ECM either converges with or diverges from your insightful positions.
1. You are absolutely right — many sincere theoretical reformulations are dismissed out of hand without due scrutiny. ECM itself has faced similar resistance despite its energetic consistency and observational applicability. This is one reason I make it a point to welcome cross-framework comparison.
2. Your challenge to both GR and SR is appreciated and, in many ways, resonates with ECM’s central critique: that time dilation, spacetime curvature, and geometric constructs are derivative, not fundamental. ECM derives time from frequency (Δt ≡ 1/f), not from relativistic invariance.
3. Absolutely agreed. ECM treats the photon not as a fundamentally massless entity, but as an expression of displaced apparent mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ). Its energy is equivalently defined as:
ΔMᴍ = hf/c² → hf = −Mᵃᵖᵖc²
This ensures that the photon’s momentum and liberation are intrinsically linked to a gravitational-to-antigravitational transition — a view quite aligned with your own dismissal of the massless-photon postulate.
4. Personal Findings and Comparative Analysis Report
Thank you for sharing your publication (DOI: 10.22541/au.175087018.88558419/v1. In acknowledgment of your contributions, I have prepared a Comparative Analysis Report to clearly map your propositions alongside ECM’s distinct terminology and mechanisms. It is available here:
Comparative Analysis Report: Terry McMahon's Reformulations vs. Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) Framework https://www.researchgate.net/post/Comparative_Analysis_Report_Terry_McMahons_Reformulations_vs_Extended_Classical_Mechanics_ECM_Framework
5. ECM fundamentally agrees that GR’s use of curvature fails to capture the physical mechanism of gravitation. Instead, gravitational confinement is defined as the retention of mass-energy within an apparent mass framework (Mᵃᵖᵖ), which reversibly releases into kinetic or radiative form.
6. Your point about GR’s poor treatment of wave-particle duality is well taken. ECM circumvents this by not relying on curvature but rather on mass restructuring. In ECM, the bound–liberated transition (via ΔMᴍ) allows particles to express both wave and kinetic properties without requiring a curved manifold.
7. We share a strong alignment here. In ECM, relativistic time is replaced by frequency-derived time, and all reference frame effects are interpreted as frequency-dependent energetic shifts, not coordinate-based artefacts.
8. You mentioned that ECM’s “apparent” and “effective” masses essentially reflect real mass behaviour — and I agree. ECM uses these terms to distinguish transitional mass states rather than to invoke unreality. Both Mᵃᵖᵖ and Mᵉᶠᶠ possess observable energetic consequences and satisfy conservation dynamics.
9. Your critique is echoed in ECM’s own formulation, where a derived constant `k = 5.558 × 10⁻³⁴ Js` replaces `h`, and is tied directly to a fundamental origin frequency `f₀ = 3.571 × 10⁴² Hz`. This constructs energy-frequency continuity without assuming strict constancy over scale.
10. Your notion of energy-scaled parameters aligns with ECM’s core idea that mass-frequency interconversion governs both gravitational binding and electromagnetic emission. While you use “running parameters,” ECM operationalizes this through ΔMᴍ transitions.
11. The courage to challenge paradigms often finds no welcome in established venues — I deeply empathize. Your observations mirror ECM’s publishing journey: independent development, cross-validation, and community dialogue over institutional endorsement.
12. Dear Mr. McMahon, I sincerely appreciate your encouragement and the intellectual integrity with which you’ve responded. Our differing notations and methods should not obscure the deep conceptual synergy between our frameworks. I look forward to continued dialogue and potential collaboration to refine these ideas further.
With best regards and respect,
Soumendra Nath Thakur
ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803
https://soumendranaththakur.blogspot.com/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning