Comparative Analysis Report: McMahon vs. Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM)

	Sign In Sign-Up

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 (−M^app), hence carries effective mass component. Both assert non-zero mass association for free photons. ECM frames this via mass-displacement (ΔM_M).

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 M^eff; anti-gravity is liberated M^app. 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 (ΔM_M). 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 ΔM_M-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 (ΔM_M), effective and apparent mass (M^eff, M^app), 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.

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 (−M^app), hence carries effective mass component.	Both assert non-zero mass association for free photons. ECM frames this via mass-displacement (ΔM_M).
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 M^eff; anti-gravity is liberated M^app. 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 (ΔM_M).	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 ΔM_M-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.