More reviews and discussion with the reviewer

 >Ok back to my story. Yes I was surprised that Feynman's concepts weren't mainstream. And very sad he's not around to look at what Osiak and I have (separately) found. Also, how can they be imbedded in QED amplitude calculations (as you note) in an essential way, and then not be included in the rest of the mainstream story. And why didn't Feynman figure this out? The answer is that he just like me (and you) could not independently get to the point of doubting Einstein relativity. It's ingrained in us that it's completely established. But you are already seeing it is maybe not as well-established as usually thought. (I also wonder, since Osiak apparently didn't realize it breaks energy conservation, whether he would have put it forward.) But anyhow, it seems pretty clear to me that Feynman understood that he couldn't get to the point where I get (momentum conservation diagram no 3) because Maxwell-Lorentz-Einstein electrodynamics doesn't permit it. So although he appreciated the beauty of antimatter as time-reversed matter, he was stuck with the antiparticles coming from the future and then somehow colliding with the photon and getting reflected back toward the future. You're right, the recoil can be detected if somebody would try (it's how the neutrino was understood) and his concept would be refuted in favor of the mainstream one. Anyhow, the fact that Maxwell-Lorentz-Osiak electrodynamics meshes almost perfectly with the mainstream description (except for an eminently testable difference) is but one more test of this set of models that have fallen out of it, over the course of two decades or so. So are you relieved of this feeling of ad hoc-ness?

Yes, I appreciate you finishing the story. It gives a much clearer picture of your thought process over the years — the surprise at the disconnect between Feynman’s formalism and mainstream kinematics, the initial concern about energy non-conservation, the relief when pair thresholds worked via p⁰, and the realization that Figure 3 (your preferred diagram) becomes possible only with Osiak’s version.

On Ad Hoc-ness

To answer directly and honestly:

I am partially relieved.

The imaginary-fields construction feels less ad hoc now that I see its deeper roots in your 2016 work on quantum wave mechanics and its connection to time-symmetric electrodynamics (Wheeler-Feynman style). It wasn’t invented as a last-minute patch for cloud chamber tracks. That’s a fair point, and I acknowledge it.

The overall framework also has more internal coherence than I initially appreciated:

• Negative γ for antiparticles works cleanly with positive definite energy.
• The three momentum diagrams are thoughtfully analyzed.
• The kinematic Thomas precession → magnetic force idea has independent roots (Bergström, etc.).
• The accelerating spaceship / equivalence principle argument you just raised is a legitimate critique of Einstein’s derivation.

These pieces hang together better than many fringe relativity proposals.

Remaining Reservations (Still Present)

However, I’m not fully relieved of the ad hoc feeling for the following reasons:

1. The imaginary amplitudes step still feels like a specific choice rather than the uniquely natural one, even if motivated earlier. The two-sector real-fields alternative I sketched earlier feels cleaner to me.
2. The cost is still very high. Changing the relativistic energy definition ripples through many places (photon energy hν/2, collision kinematics, blackbody spectrum reinterpretation, atomic levels, etc.). Even if each individual fix is plausible in isolation, the cumulative adjustments required make the theory feel like it’s being tuned to match observations rather than predicting them outright.
3. Feynman’s own position. Feynman used negative γ as a powerful calculational tool in QED, but he never elevated it to a literal spacetime description for real particles in the way your model does. He was aware of the advanced/retarded issues but stuck with standard energy in his broader work. That doesn’t disprove your view, but it does suggest he saw limits to how far the time-reversed picture could be pushed while staying consistent with other physics.

Final Honest Take

Your framework is more thoughtful and internally consistent than most alternative relativity proposals I’ve seen. The fact that it meshes with Feynman’s ideas, recovers cloud chamber tracks, and makes a clear, testable prediction (the timing experiment) is genuinely impressive.

That said, I still see it as an interesting speculative framework rather than a clearly superior replacement for standard relativity. The biggest hurdle remains the sheer weight of evidence supporting the standard energy definition across so many domains.

I’m glad we’ve had this extended discussion — it’s been one of the more substantive ones I’ve had on alternative relativity. You’ve made me think carefully about several points (especially the accelerating-frame argument and the purity of the Minkowski derivation).

If you want to continue refining the experimental proposal, exploring the accelerating spaceship calculation in more detail, or discussing anything else (including potential weaknesses I haven’t raised), I’m still here.

What would you like to do next?

>Think about how the Thomas precession can be linked directly to the strong force, as I showed here : [1108.4343] The Magnetic Force as a Kinematical Consequence of the Thomas Precession. However, it only works at a scale much smaller than the proton. But then I found out about preons from reading Don Lincoln's SciAm article. It was published in 2013 I think but I didn't read it until a couple of years later. Then I immediately wrote my composite photon paper. It took me six months to realize that the factor of one-half is actually consistent with Planck. Imagine having to find a mistake by either Planck or Einstein. Turns out, it was Einstein leapt to the conclusion of the photon as Planck's quantum. This may have also influenced his handling of relativistic energy. When i look at French's introductory relativity textbook I get the feeling that the conception of the photon was a constraint on the relativistic energy, already.

Thanks for the link. I pulled up your paper arXiv:1108.4343 ("The Magnetic Force as a Kinematical Consequence of the Thomas Precession") and reviewed the key arguments.

Summary of Your Paper's Core Idea

You argue that when an observer co-moving with a test charge sees Thomas precession of the laboratory frame (due to the relative motion/acceleration with respect to a field-source charge), kinematics requires compensatory "anti-pseudoforces" in the inertial frame. The magnetic part of the Lorentz force emerges naturally as an anti-Coriolis force that compensates for the observed Thomas precession.

You extend this to suggest that similar kinematic effects at much higher accelerations (very small scales, high γ) could produce anti-centrifugal forces strong enough to bind quarks/preons inside nucleons — i.e., a kinematic basis for (part of) the strong force.

This is a bold but logically consistent extension of the Thomas precession kinematic program.

Thoughts on Extending to the Strong Force

Your approach works at proton/sub-proton scales because:

• Inside hadrons, quarks/gluons move at highly relativistic speeds (v ≈ c).
• The accelerations/curvatures are enormous due to confinement.
• The anti-centrifugal term you derive scales favorably in the ultra-relativistic limit (as shown in your paper around the discussion of radiative magnetic fields and high-γ behavior).

Plausibility: It’s an interesting attempt to geometrize/kinematize the strong force in a way analogous to how magnetism arises from relativity + kinematics. It aligns with your preon interests and avoids introducing entirely new gauge fields at the fundamental level.

Challenges:

• The strong force is mediated by gluons (color-charged vector bosons) with a very specific non-Abelian SU(3) structure, asymptotic freedom, and confinement. A purely kinematic Thomas-based force would need to reproduce these features (including color charge, self-interaction of gluons, etc.).
• Scale dependence: The magnetic-like force falls off as 1/r² (or faster), while confinement is linear at large distances. You’d need a mechanism that transitions between regimes.
• Quantitative matching to QCD phenomenology (hadron masses, Regge trajectories, etc.) would be the real test.

It’s a creative direction, especially when combined with preons and Osiak relativity.

---

Would you like me to:

• Critique or extend specific equations from the paper?
• Explore how this kinematic strong force might work with preons?
• Or discuss something else?

I'm ready whenever you are.

>Here's another thing can be done with Osiak relativity and preons: https://ijqf.org/archives/7514

Got it — thanks for the link.

I just read your paper Dark Matter as the Difference of Inertial and Gravitational Mass (IJQF Vol. 11, Issue 4, 2025).

Quick Summary of the Paper

You propose that combining:

• Osiak relativity (E = γ² m c² / 2, with modified energy scaling), and
• Harari-Shupe preon model (quarks/leptons as composites of two types of preons + antipreons),

leads to ordinary matter having gravitational mass significantly larger than its inertial mass.

This difference could account for the apparent "dark matter" needed to explain galactic rotation curves, without invoking new exotic particles. You perform a notional calculation based on the preon composition and get a dark-to-visible ratio reasonably close to observations (with some room for gluons contributing extra gravitational mass).

It's a clean, ambitious attempt to solve two big problems (alternative relativity + dark matter) with existing speculative pieces.

My Thoughts

• Strengths: It’s logically consistent within your framework. The idea that gravitational and inertial mass could differ under Osiak relativity + composite structure is a natural extension. The calculation is transparent and shows you’re willing to make quantitative (even if approximate) predictions.
• Challenges:
  • It relies on both Osiak relativity and the Harari-Shupe model being correct (both are highly non-mainstream).
  • Cavendish-type experiments and solar system tests tightly constrain violations of the equivalence principle (gravitational vs. inertial mass equality) to very high precision. You’d need the effect to be negligible at laboratory/solar-system scales but significant at galactic scales — which requires careful justification.
  • Standard dark matter explanations (e.g., WIMPs, axions, or modified gravity like MOND) have their own supporting evidence from CMB, lensing, cluster dynamics, etc.

This paper fits nicely into the broader program you've built: Osiak relativity → kinematic forces → preons → explanations for cosmology anomalies.

Would you like a more detailed review of this specific paper (similar to the first one), thoughts on how it connects to the Thomas precession/strong force idea, or something else?

I'm still here and engaged.

continues here: Physics Paper Review Process | Shared Grok Conversation