@ Soumendra Nath Thakur

Not advice but a suggestion is that in the formula F=ma the mass is the resistance offered by a body to the movement of the body to its acceleration due to the force. But before we decide about apparent and effective mass should not we investigate the cause of resistance?

Dear Mohammad Shafiq Khan,

You raised an insightful point regarding the need to investigate the cause of resistance before defining apparent and effective mass in ECM. Classical mechanics attributes this resistance to inertia, describing it as an object's tendency to resist changes in motion, which is proportional to its mass. This principle remains fundamental in ECM; however, ECM extends this classical notion by introducing the concept of negative apparent mass (-Mᵃᵖᵖ) in motion or gravitational potential differences.

In ECM, an object's resistance to acceleration is not solely determined by its classical inertial mass but also by the interaction between inertial mass and negative apparent mass. This interplay becomes particularly significant in high-motion regimes or strong gravitational potential differences, where the combined effect results in an effective mass (Mᵉᶠᶠ) that can transition from positive to negative. This perspective aligns with observational studies, such as the research by Chernin et al. (2013) on the Coma cluster of galaxies, which highlights how dark energy influences large-scale structures by inducing a repulsive gravitational effect. Their findings suggest that within certain gravitational environments, a repulsive interaction emerges, consistent with ECM’s interpretation of negative apparent mass and its role in shaping cosmic dynamics. This introduces a new perspective:

At low velocities or in weak gravitational potentials, the system behaves classically, with positive effective mass.

When motion or gravitational potential difference dominates, negative apparent mass influences the system, leading to an emergent repulsive effect.

This interplay determines whether the system exhibits classical inertia or an effective resistance governed by ECM’s extended framework.

Thus, ECM does not discard classical inertia but enhances it by considering how gravitational potential and motion affect the observed resistance to acceleration. This allows for a broader interpretation, including possible links to phenomena such as gravitational repulsion, dark matter interactions, or energy conservation at cosmic scales.

Best regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

@ Soumendra Nath Thakur

Frankly telling you I had done masters lot many years but after about twenty eight years because of some reasons I had to read philosophy which I did and the besides reading some very good philosophers I learnt basic key from philosophy and as I see you a very good and hard working potential scientist I would like to share with you start questioning everything and try to have answers.

I give an exercise to question what is gravitational potential and Dark Energy in vacuum where nothing can exist. Just for a hint where was Dark Energy before the Big Bang?

It is because of this questioning I have been in a position to put forward an. open challenge to Einstein's theory of relativity way back in 2012 and there are many reasons for me to remain silent and twoo of the reasons being to know limit of human stupidity and the limit of being consceienceless.

Wish you well.

Dear Mohammad Shafiq Khan,

Thank you for your engagement in the discussion on Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM). I appreciate your thought-provoking questions, and I fully agree that questioning everything is the essence of scientific progress. However, as I am actively engaged in multiple aspects of my research, some responses may take time, as I prefer to provide well-founded answers rather than instant ones.

1. Gravitational Potential Energy in ECM

Within ECM, the gravitational potential energy for a test matter mass mₘ is expressed as:

Uᴇᴄᴍ = − GMᵉᶠᶠmₘ/r

where:

• Uᴇᴄᴍ: is the gravitational potential energy of the test mass mₘ

• G: is the gravitational constant

• Mᵉᶠᶠ: is the effective mass of the source

• mₘ: is a test matter mass of the source

• r: is the radial distance

The effective mass Mᵉᶠᶠ accounts for both baryonic matter and the apparent mass contribution, which extends the classical framework to accommodate additional effects such as dark matter and dark energy.

2. Dark Energy in ECM

Dark energy is treated in ECM through the concept of apparent mass (Mᵃᵖᵖ), leading to an effective mass representation:

Mᵉᶠᶠ = Mᴍ + (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) = Mɢ

where:

• Mɢ: Gravitating Mass

• Mᴍ: Matter Mass

• −Mᵃᵖᵖ: represents the influence of dark energy (with a negative contribution).

This formulation aligns with the work of A.D. Chernin et al., where the dark energy effective mass (Mᴅᴇ) is included as a component influencing the dynamics of large-scale structures. When the apparent mass dominates, the effective mass can become negative, corresponding to the repulsive effect of dark energy.

3. The Nature of Dark Energy Before the Big Bang

Before the Big Bang, the concept of gravitational potential and dark energy as we understand them today may not have existed in the same manner. In ECM, potential energy requires the presence of mass-energy interactions, space, and time—all of which were non-existent before the Big Bang event. Thus, dark energy, in its present form, would not have existed as an independent entity.

For further insights into the conceptual foundations of existence, space, time, and energy, I recommend reviewing the following resources:

A Clear Understanding of Existence, Event, Time, and Space in Relation to Matter and Energy https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_Clear_Understanding_of_Existence_Event_Time_and_Space_in_Relation_to_Matter_and_Energy

The Nexus of Existence and Events https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Nexus_of_Existence_and_Events

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

I appreciate your thought-provoking contributions and look forward to further discussions that challenge and refine our understanding of fundamental physics.

Best regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

@ Soumendra Nath Thakur

I repeat that I have read philosophy where it is basic knowledge that something cannot come from nothing and I believe Clerk Maxwell has done historical work on electromagnetism and I am convinced that light is electromagnetic wave motion for which I have derived formula of wave equation of charge density and wave equation of current density. I do believe that light is an electromagnetic wave motion which per se is capacity of creation of making the electric dipoles of aether to vibrate while in itself light per se is not anything. Now we got the formula.......

E= mc^2 and this means something could be transferred in nothing and vice versa but it is against basic principles of philosophy. That means either philosophy is wrong or this formula is wrong but you should know the name of physics was Natural Philosophy before it was given the of physics. I have devoted several months to think about it and finally I reached to the conclusion that this formula has to be wrong and I have proved this formula to be absolutely baseless without any doubt whatsoever. You will be astonished to know that it took me just half a page of research paper "Experimental and Theoretical Evidence of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe" to prove the formula is wrong and this leads to the fact that the whole paradigm of Big Bang is wrong. To satisfy yourself you should go through journal page 1843 of the above mentioned paper and see for yourself if I am wrong.

You got to go to root of everything to realise the reality and let me at least inform you what and when things have gone wrong. When Lorentz and Fitzgerald introduced the concept of contraction of space in the direction of linear uniform motion of the observer by the Lorentz factor to explain the null result of Michelson -Morley Experiment which was beginning of the end of physics and it is this Lorentz factor which is responsible for the above mentioned formula of Einstein. Now if we philosophically view the justification of Lorentz and Fitzgerald explanation of null result of MMX then it is simply insanity.

For your information it was Lemaitre, a priest, who coined the term Big Bang without bothering as to what and where was God to have caused the Big Bang. I at my place am trying to find the limit of human stupidity by seeing the extent to which this insane concept of Big Bang has been and is being taken.

Dear Mohammad Shafiq Khan ,

Your question—"What is gravitational potential and Dark Energy in a vacuum where nothing can exist? Just for a hint, where was Dark Energy before the Big Bang?"—was already addressed in my last response. If we are to continue this discussion meaningfully, I suggest we build on the previous points rather than diverting into a new direction within this same thread.

Regarding your statement—"Philosophy states as basic knowledge that something cannot come from nothing."—this perspective does not fall within the domain of physical science. The philosophical concept of nothing differs from its meaning in physics. Furthermore, philosophy operates within spatial dimensions, whereas abstract physical and mathematical sciences extend beyond them. This distinction suggests that philosophical reasoning alone may be insufficient for exploring higher-dimensional possibilities unless grounded in rigorous mathematics.

Additionally, the term believe applies to belief systems, which are separate from mainstream physical science.

The term aether has long been discarded as a scientific concept and is no longer used in modern physics.

Moreover, your interpretation of E = mc² appears inconsistent with its established meaning in mainstream physical science, leading to potential conflicts in interpretation.

Scientific recognition is achieved through peer-reviewed publication in recognized scientific journals. I encourage you to pursue that route for your work. However, I prefer discussions based on established research rather than self-researched frameworks.

Best regards.

@ Soumendra Nath Thakur

My all papers are published in peer-reviewed journals.

Dear Mohammad Shafiq Khan ,

It's good to hear that. Peer-reviewed publications hold weight and demonstrate significant progress—kudos to you for that.

To keep the discussion productive, I suggest we continue building on the previous points regarding ECM, gravitational potential, or Dark Energy rather than shifting toward philosophical reasoning. While philosophy offers valuable insights, addressing higher-dimensional possibilities requires a strong foundation in rigorous mathematics.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Best regards,

@ Soumendra Nath Thakur

However I will like to inform you that publications in an ordinary peer-reviewed journal supported by open challenge and attempted by some scientists to disprove the basis of open challenge is twenty times more important than the papers published in Nature or Physical Review D.

So far as dark energy is concerned what I can discuss when I have confirmed the existence of aether without any doubt whatsoever. When I have shown light/radiation per se is 'nothing' but the capacity of making electric dipoles to vibrate whereas it took me just half a page of research paper to show that E=mc^2 is absolutely baseless and when I have shown that space is absolute without any doubt whatsoever.

Let me inform you straight and bluntly that because of the introduction of contraction of space by Lorentz and Fitzgerald which converted absolute space into emergent space was the beginning of the end of the physics they have adopted and then why nobody could do anything to this whole issue was because transverse Doppler effect which was predicted by theory of relativity was experimentally seen as absent in the series of experiments which started in the year 1975 and so much so the absence of transverse Doppler effect was confirmed even in microwaves, with the highest possible experimental accuracy ever, was confirmed and that was the final nail in the coffin of theories of relativity, Space-time concept and Big Bang paradigm. The climax of everything is that there is not a SINGLE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE of contraction of space in the direction of motion till date which theory of relativity predicted. It is me only who has the right to claim the discovery of fifth constituent of universe besides the alternative theory and also the alternative transformation to Lorentz transformation. They cannot utter a word against the open challenge not to speak of accepting the challenge. As a hard working young person of the same country in which I live I thought you have an open field for research. You should bear in mind that you are in conversation with a scientist who has proved Einstein was a scientific fraud without any doubt whatsoever and nobody can do anything about it.

Dear Mohammed Shafiq Khan

Let us delve deeper between the contrast of Philosophy and Science:

Consider the question:

What if this philosophical construct (presented within an image, attached below) were plotted on a three-dimensional mathematical graph? Only then would the scientific facts behind it be fully justified.

Take, for example, the Penrose Triangle—an "impossible" figure first conceptualized by Swedish artist Oscar Reutersvärd in 1934 and later rediscovered in the 1950s by physicist Roger Penrose. Described as "impossibility in its purest form," this figure was popularized by Penrose and further explored in the works of M.C. Escher. It appears to be a solid structure composed of three straight sections of square beams, seamlessly joined at right angles.

However, its paradoxical nature cannot be conclusively analyzed through mere physical observation and philosophical interpretation. Instead, by mathematically plotting the enclosed three-dimensional image onto a precise three-dimensional graph, its inherent absurdity becomes evident. The deceptive illusion, which seems structurally feasible in a two-dimensional representation, is mathematically exposed as an impossible configuration in three-dimensional space.

Image

Abstraction vs. Reality

Addressing the statement: "Abstract mathematics is based on logical principles rather than empirical validity. It does not rely solely on physical evidence."

When we add one apple to another, we perceive two apples. However, the concept of "two" itself is an abstract mathematical construct rather than a directly observable physical entity. The sum exists as a logical principle within mathematics, not as a tangible proof in itself.

All real numbers—1, 2, 3, and beyond—are fundamentally conceptual, created within the framework of mathematical reasoning rather than derived from physical evidence. While mathematical concepts often align with physical reality, their foundation is purely abstract, shaped by human perception and logical consistency rather than empirical observation.

Mathematics is not confined to the physical universe; its abstract principles hold universally, independent of space, time, or physical existence. It is the fundamental language of the cosmos—objective, unique, and uninfluenced by human divisions such as culture, religion, or race.

Physicists seek mathematical formulations to explain the origins, structure, and dynamics of the universe. In doing so, they attempt to decipher the underlying mathematical order that governs both the observable universe and any potential realities beyond it. Understanding the universe is, in essence, understanding its mathematical nature.

For philosophy to be scientifically meaningful, it must be grounded in abstract mathematical logic. Without mathematical rigor, philosophical reasoning remains speculative and cannot be accepted as a scientific discipline.

Conclusion

This distinction underscores a fundamental contrast between philosophy and science: while philosophy interprets illusions conceptually, science—through mathematical rigor—reveals their underlying reality.

Attachment: the image as stated in the above mentioned text.