In conventional mass spectrometry, atomic and nuclear masses are determined by measuring the deflection or resonance frequency of ions moving through magnetic or electric fields. The core measurement yields the mass-to-charge ratio m/q, derived from the kinematic response of the ion under the Lorentz force. However, this method implicitly assumes that the ion’s trajectory is influenced solely by its mass and net charge, while neglecting any contributions from intrinsic electromagnetic moments, such as the magnetic dipole moment associated with electronic or nuclear spin, or hypothetical internal electric field energy.
This assumption is broadly valid for many practical purposes, since the corrections from such moments are several orders of magnitude smaller than the primary deflection effects. Yet, at the level of high-precision atomic mass measurements, such as those used to test fundamental constants or derive binding energies, the influence of internal electromagnetic structure may no longer be negligible. Particularly in Penning trap systems or cyclotron resonance techniques, deviations due to spin-orbit coupling, magnetic susceptibility, or hyper-fine energy levels are acknowledged and sometimes corrected for. However, if the rest mass of the ion includes contributions from internally stored electromagnetic energy ...such as inductive or capacitive field configurations within the atomic structure ...then even the most refined measurements might reflect a composite effective mass, not the “bare” gravitational or inertial mass.
This possibility gains significance under theories where mass is not fundamental but emergent from internal dynamics or time-structured processes. If an atom's electromagnetic configuration changes ...either due to ionization, excitation, or orientation in a field ...then so too might its apparent mass, as inferred from spectrometric measurements. In this view, the accepted atomic mass values could carry small but systematic errors that trace back to an incomplete physical model of the atom's internal structure.
Such a hypothesis calls for re-evaluating the assumptions behind mass spectrometry at its highest levels of precision, especially when mass is used as a basis for linking quantum theory to gravitational or cosmological models.
What are your thoughts about that ?
I would say even if a particle is in motion, for example, orbiting around another, this motion does not necessarily contribute to the observable or effective mass of the system, because the net energy can be zero.
In an idealized orbital configuration, the kinetic energy of the moving particle is exactly balanced by the potential energy from the central mass or binding field. This results in a stable, closed system where internal forces are in dynamic equilibrium. The system may be alive with motion, but there's no net energy surplus or deficit.
In terms of mass, only energy differentials (actual deviations from balance) contribute to what could be interpreted as additional mass via E=mc2. So, if the internal motions cancel out energetically, they produce no change in the system’s mass as measured from the outside.
This is not just a computational artifact, but a reflection of how physical systems embed energy through symmetry and conservation. Mass doesn’t care about motion per se. It cares about imbalance. As long as everything moves in a perfectly symmetric, self-canceling way, the system stays quiet on the scale.
Magnetic dipoles inherently seek energetic equilibrium. If unbound or free to rotate, they will naturally align with external fields to minimize potential energy. So, under most conditions, the internal energy contributions of a magnetic dipole do not lead to persistent net changes in mass, because the system self-stabilizes.
If such a system were contributing to mass, one would expect a measurable, asymmetric shift, for instance, in spin-precession behavior, resonance frequency, or field interaction. And yes, those can be measured. In fact, they're routinely measured in high-precision setups like atomic clocks, Penning traps, or hyperfine spectroscopy.
But if the measurements show no persistent imbalance or residual energy? Then your system is just. balanced. And balanced systems don’t contribute to net mass.
As an incorrigible heretic I would sing a completely different song... no matter how many centuries E has been equal to mc2 ...E has dimension "JOULE" and can't be added to the "KILOGRAM" that carry this number of "Joule" in form of kinetic energy... that m=E/c2 is true, but has nothing to do with it. An energy {kg*m2/sec2} can't possibly have a momentum {kg*m/sec}, a momentum is only observable among massive bodies and energy can only deliver a momentum to a body, if this energy is used to accelerate the body.
The claim that mass is reaching against infinity when approaching the speed of light is the most stupid claim the mainstream ever made... but that happens when the Lorentz factor is arbitrarily added somewhere in the theory. The Lorenz factor will show its face when time is... but "they" couldn't wait until they reach that point in time where this factor presents itself and that was why the hybrid monster General Relativity was born {and celebrated for no reason}.
Mainstream physics is a mess...
Berndt Barkholz "Mainstream physics is a mess..."
Yes, but not because of E=mc². It is a mess because it is built upon potential energy. But potential energy is not really existing. What is really existing is the energy density contained in force fields.
Instead of using potential energy in the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, and in the least action principle, F=dE/ds must be used.
The cause of all forces F on an object in our world is the dependency of an energy content E on the position s of the object.
Wolfgang Konle
Energy is the result of force... but not the cause ! As I said before:
Force is caused by a time-gradient ! There is no way around that !
The cause for the energy is the mass, right ? But the mass is also causing the time-gradient... without mass no energy density and no time-gradient ! The force is then given of the product of energy and time-gradient. But you will not accept that because the dimensions start complaining... I told you before that all dimensions have to be corrected distance -> m/sec3, speed >m/sec4, force -> Newton/sec6...and so on, but then you call that nonsense and me something else... You never want to listen and think about what you heard and read ! I can even understand that... because who am I claiming such things ?
Wolfgang Konle
An example for you to think about:
Force: Newton/Second6
Energy: Watt/Second8
Time gradient: Second3/Meter
Now we have that: force=time-gradient*Energy
Second3/Meter*Watt/Second8*=Newton/Second6
This is nonsense you said some time ago... prove it !!
Now I will leave it to you... how do you get the time-gradient and why must the dimensions be corrected ? Just claiming I speak nonsense is very easy...
By the way... the reason why the dimensions have to be corrected is that the time-gradient comes out with the dimension 1/Meter...obviously not the right dimension for a time-gradient. Your turn...
Berndt Barkholz "Energy is the result of force... but not the cause"
No energy is not the result of a force. Without a movement, a force does not transmit energy. But without an energy source no force can be exerted.
Think at a spring. If the spring is strained, it contains elastic energy. Only then it exerts a force.
Berndt Barkholz "Force: Newton/Second6"
No, Force : Newton!
Newton/Second6 as units for the force violates the definition of the force in physics.
"The claim that mass is reaching against infinity when approaching the speed of light is the most stupid claim the mainstream ever made..."
Don't forget that what we're describing here is observational. The idea that mass 'approaches infinity' isn't a claim about what is happening locally to the object, but about how it behaves from the observer's frame. You're basically describing an object that becomes unobservable, or, if you prefer the term, a 'black hole' from your point of view. The theory does not tell you what happens inside, but only what you can measure from outside.
To say it more clear: It appears as if the mass goes against infinity.
Wolfgang Konle
I need A Response That Thinks, Not Echoes
It’s odd, but not surprising ...your response sounds less like a dialogue and more like a well-worn loop. I was hoping for thoughtful engagement, but what I encountered was crystallized dogma, incapable of self-reflection.
Let me clarify what you seem determined to miss:
A force that doesn’t result in motion stores potential energy. A force that does result in motion produces kinetic energy.
This is not mystical ...it’s basic cause and effect. The concept of a time gradient as the origin of force isn’t "nonsense." It's an attempt to go deeper than definitions and ask: why does a force act at all?
When I write that the force unit is Newton/second⁶, I’m not claiming that classical definitions are invalid ...I’m showing that they’re incomplete when you shift perspective to time-structured interactions. If a time gradient comes out with units of 1/meter, that isn’t a time gradient. Time gradients must have dimensions of time³/distance ...whether you like it or not. If that conflicts with standard convention, then maybe it's the convention that needs rethinking.
But instead of exploring the idea, you quote the rule-book. Instead of thinking, you recite. You say I "violate definitions." Fine. Definitions aren’t sacred ...they’re tools. If they no longer explain reality, they should be improved ...not worshipped.
You call my reasoning incorrect without engaging its structure. Meanwhile, the mainstream swallows unobservable infinities, multiverses, and "gravitational waves" that nobody can properly define. That doesn't seem to bother you. But a unit correction to reveal a real time gradient? Unthinkable!
Maybe it's time to stop playing the same safe tune ...and listen to something new.
Carmen Wrede: "Don't forget that what we're describing here is observational."
Observations vs. Physical Reality
True ...but when your "observations" stretch toward infinity, your common sense should step in and ask: Am I observing reality, or hallucinating a mathematical artifact?
There comes a point where mathematical realism must override abstract obsession. If a theory leads to infinities, or worse ...to a mass shrinking to zero radius, as in the fantasy of the so-called Black Hole ...then you're no longer doing physics. You're playing in the same sandbox as cartoon logic. That’s not science ...that’s Mickey Mouse physics dressed in equations.
Berndt Barkholz "A force that doesn’t result in motion stores potential energy. A force that does result in motion produces kinetic energy."
Sorry, but these points are blatantly wrong.
A force that does not cause any motion does not store anything. It does not matter how long this force lasts. Think about the weight force, all heavy things exert on the ground. Though the things have created some elastic energy in the ground, which then raises the counter force to the weight force, the weight force does not increase some "potential energy".
A force that does result in motion does not only produce kinetic energy. Think about something you are moving against a fricton force. The movement results in thermal energy. The amount of thermal energy generated is equal to force times way.
Berndt Barkholz "Maybe it's time to stop playing the same safe tune ...and listen to something new."
Yes, that's fine. Therefor I am also following a new approach.
But my approach is in line with basic mechanical rules.
The new approach is simply the finding that potential energy does not exist in reality. Only an energy density in force fields exist. In addition, the new general approach is that all forces on an object are caused by an amount of energy which depends on the position of the object.
Time does not play any role in this basic principle, and standard physics does not deny this principle, it simply ignores it.
This general new approach has far reaching consequences which concern radiation effects and finally even leads to a new cosmology.
As I said... and expected... I get more from an old physics book from the last century ...you are hopeless !
You're mistaking examples for principles.
Yes, if an object doesn't move, the force may not do work, but that doesn’t mean energy isn’t involved. A stretched spring, a compressed surface, or a suspended mass all involve stored potential energy ...precisely because of a force that doesn't result in motion. That's standard physics, not speculation.
And yes, when motion occurs against friction, energy becomes heat. That’s not a contradiction ...it's a confirmation: force acting over distance produces energy, whether kinetic, thermal, or otherwise.
What I’m talking about is causality, not bookkeeping. Force doesn't just appear ...it's the result of something deeper. If you want to understand the origin of motion and interaction, you have to look beyond examples and start asking why force emerges at all. That’s where the time gradient comes in.
You’re quoting rules. I’m questioning foundations. And as a new thing... I'm questioning your understanding and your authority to lecture anybody...
"If a theory leads to infinities, or worse ...to a mass shrinking to zero radius, as in the fantasy of the so-called Black Hole ...then you're no longer doing physics."
It’s totally interesting. In both cases, photons alone (c) as a measuring tool do not work anymore. You've reached the observational limit. And that’s really exciting! Because it opens the next question: What comes after Newton, Bernoulli, Euler, and Einstein? What other methods of observation are possible?
"That’s not science ...that’s Mickey Mouse physics dressed in equations."
If I were you, I wouldn’t waste my intellect by trampling the same path others have walked before, only to claim it was all just 'low physics'. The truth is: This is where we, as humans, have also reached the limit of our senses. It wasn’t Mickey Mouse. It was simply human.
Let's do something new :D Let's instead of outperforming c outperform time \o/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krgbx4SYnVg
Because... if we are doing Mickey Mouse physics let's at least give it a beat, some bass and color \o/
Berndt Barkholz "What I’m talking about is causality, not bookkeeping. Force doesn't just appear ...it's the result of something deeper."
Yes, the causality or the deeper cause of a force F on an object is an energy W(s) dependent on the position s of the object. F=dW/ds, dW/ds=(∂W/∂sx, ∂W/∂sy, ∂W/∂sz)
What formula are you proposing instead for the cause of a force F on an object, F=?
Indeed, we are quite close in describing the phenomenon of a force on an object. But our interpretations are extremely different.
May be your position is more close to momentum P equals force F * time t. P=F*t or infinitesimal F=dP/dt.
But we can show that dE/ds=dP/dt is valid. This fundamental connection seems to be what you are missing.
@Carmen Wrede
I chose my own path about 25 years ago and except that I defend Newton I am NOT tramping in anybodies footsteps ! Unfortunately I have to use at least some of my intellect trying to convince guy's like Wolfgang... even if it is a fading flower of hope...
Wolfgang Konle: " What formula are you proposing instead for the cause of a force F on an object, F=?"
I already told you... but it shouldn't be a problem for you to find the answer (the right equations) yourself...it's only high school level. But you prefer Gauss gravity and all this field nonsense and besides that you stick to conventions, they are for you what the bible is for the pope... think in stead of believe !
Force: Newton/Second6
Energy: Watt/Second8
Time gradient: Second3/Meter
Now we have that: force=time-gradient*Energy
Second3/Meter*Watt/Second8*=Newton/Second6
The conventions you stick to need rethinking... but you don't like that, because it may be bad for your reputation... right ?! Coward !
Wolfgang Konle
Somehow I first now notice this comment from you... where you say:
"But my approach is in line with basic mechanical rules."
So you say... but it's certainly NOT about rules...
Berndt Barkholz "Now we have that: force=time-gradient*Energy"
But that's wrong! Time-gradient is time difference per length. This is an inverse velocity. But energy per velocity is a momentum and not a force.
Any new theory must not be in contradiction to basic definitions of physics.
By questioning its basic definitions or how you say "conventions", you are questioning physics entirely. If you are denying physics entirely, then you have nothing to which you could compare your new theory.
It is not cowardice to acknowledge the basic definitions of physics it is rationality.
The units of "time-gradient" are not second³/meter. They are second/meter.
The units of energy are not Watt/second8. They are Watt*second.
The units of force are not Newton/second6. They are simply Newton.
How did you come at all to those wrong definitions? How did you derive it?
Did you simply start with those definitions, falling from the sky just in front of you?
Wolfgang Konle
Who are a handful of scientists to tell Mother Nature the rules ? Ey ?!
Basic definitions are man-made and seem to have fallen from the sky right in front of them, yes !! To acknowledge the basic definitions of physics it is NOT rationality, it's obedience !
Just try to investigate that closer... that is if you can...
Wolfgang Konle
Here a file that shows the new units... the file is not complete... If you take some time to make some calculations you will notice that everything fits nicely... but I know you don't like it ! It's against your beloved rules...
Berndt Barkholz
Again the question: How do you derive these new units?
Wolfgang Konle
Hard work and ice-cold logic, Wolfgang. That’s what I trusted ...not myth, not mathematics-as-theology, and certainly not celebrity physics.
I went through physics the hard way, trying to find out if gravity and atomic structure could speak the same language. But how could I possibly uncover such a connection while remaining obedient to conventions and institutional dogma? At some point, you have to stop worshiping definitions and start thinking.
It became clear that something fundamental was wrong. There was ...and still is ...far too much speculative noise dressed up as knowledge. And no, I didn’t consult the shrine of Einstein or borrow any poetry from Hawking. Their imaginative constructs were the reason I started digging in the first place.
Then, about 25 years ago, I stumbled across the key: three missing factors in Newton’s gravity. Three simple corrections ...and suddenly, the spacetime circus tent collapsed. For a brief moment, I even believed this might interest the so-called scientific community.
Well… that was adorable of me.
Now I’m standing in the middle of the battlefield, ankle-deep in theory rubble, watching experts march proudly in circles. Sometimes I wonder whether I should just toss it all into the fire. Maybe the world isn't ready. Or maybe it’s just allergic to clarity.
Wolfgang Konle
A new time-structured dimensional system in physics
Let me introduce a revised system of physical units based on the hypothesis that time is the primary structuring dimension in physical interactions. The standard SI unit system, though practically effective, is built on spatial assumptions that obscure deeper relations between mass, force, energy, and the structure of atoms. By redefining base quantities in terms of time, this new framework proposes a unification of atomic and gravitational physics through a consistent dimensional logic.
Key reinterpretations include:
- Mass is redefined as kg/sec³, emphasizing its relation to time-compression and gravitational influence. - Length becomes m/sec³, suggesting that space is emergent from time-structured processes. - The speed of light is no longer a simple ratio of space over time (m/s), but m/sec⁴, embedding it in a four-fold temporal dynamic. - Gravitational force becomes N/sec⁶, revealing gravity as a force derived from a higher-order time gradient rather than spacetime curvature. - Coulomb force similarly becomes N/sec¹², indicating electromagnetic interactions as arising from even deeper temporal structure. - Planck’s constant (h) is expressed as W/sec, redefining action in terms of time-scaled power. - Bohr’s atomic velocity becomes m/sec¹⁶, demonstrating that orbital motion at the atomic scale is deeply time-governed.
This system reveals patterns that are otherwise invisible in the conventional SI system. For example, the fine structure constant, previously considered dimensionless, now emerges with dimension sec¹² ...exposing its role as a time-scaling factor in atomic interactions.
The restructured dimensionality also explains why gravity and quantum systems have remained so disjointed in mainstream theories: the units themselves are speaking incompatible languages. Under this corrected scheme, Bohr’s equations and Newton’s law of gravity reveal a striking consistency when analyzed through this lens.
Rather than discarding existing physics, this system completes it ...offering a lens through which contradictions (such as the singularity of black holes or the undefined nature of gravitational energy in general relativity) dissolve under clearer dimensional interpretation.
This summary offers only a glimpse into a more extensive restructuring of classical physics. Future sections will present formal derivations, numerical confirmations, and the deeper role of the “time gradient” as the origin of all force. That is… if I live long enough !
Berndt Barkholz "Then, about 25 years ago, I stumbled across the key: three missing factors in Newton’s gravity."
I have a similar story. But the key I've stumbled upon is simply that forces are caused by the energy density in force fields. The only thing that needs to be modified in physics is to consider force fields as independent flexible units whose energy content depends on the configuration of the field sources.
The cause is then no longer the potential energy that is in the field source, but the field itself.
The interaction of the force fields is precisely defined in physics and does not require any modification. Field vectors from different field sources are simply added using mathematical vector addition. But the energy density in the force field is proportional to the square of the field strength.
However, the change from the paradigm of potential energy to the energy density of force fields alone leads to a fundamentally new physics, which, however, also results from the unchanged foundations of mechanics.
The new physics is therefore fully compatible with the old physics, but it solves all the causality problems that arise from the use of potential energy.
The problem with the use of potential energy is that it only works in conservative systems. However, once radiation from accelerated field sources occurs, the system is no longer conservative. This is an insoluble error in the Lagrange, Hamiltonian and least action principle, in which potential energy is used. But all higher physics is built on these three principles.
Acknowledging this fallacy therefore invalidates all the enormous work that has been invested in research and publications in higher physics.
No serious theoretical physicist would admit this.
To make matters worse, using the field energy density that fills an infinite volume is theoretically much more difficult than using a potential amount of energy associated with the precisely locatable field source.
So by proposing such a paradigm shift, something is proposed that is extremely much more laborious than the original way. Without sophisticated numerical methods, there is no chance of following this paradigm shift in practice.
Therefore, the reaction is: Yes, radiation effects have been excluded in our theory. But this is an acceptable approximation.
But unfortunately, this is not acceptable in the microcosm.
Wolfgang Konle
But hat doesn't change the fact that you are on the wrong way... the cause for a force is a time-gradient ! The product of a time gradient and energy equal a force...
Berndt Barkholz "the cause for a force is a time-gradient !"
If you are pulling weeds out of the ground of your garden, what time gradient exerts the force on the weeds?
Wolfgang Konle
The positive "pulling weed of the ground gradient"... what else ?!
Its rather a special Berndt Barkholz time gradient, because some time is needed for pulling weeds.
With your "time gradient" you are focusing on the gravitational force. But the point is that all forces have a common cause.
Yes all forces have a common cause: the time gradient...
Some time is always needed to give a mass a momentum by using a force.
Berndt Barkholz "Some time is always needed to give a mass a momentum by using a force."
Yes, force times time gives momentum. But what is a time-gradient?
Please provide a definition of your time-gradient!
Wolfgang Konle
What can it be ? Time per distance ! But then you find that the units are not wrong, they are incomplete... but that's where you start talking about rules, irrelevant man-made rules. A time gradient has unit sec3/m... but you can experiment with time per length (sec/m), but when you find the gradient it will show up as 1/m... I will not tell you more YOU need to find that gradient yourself in order to stop saying "nonsense"... it's easy !!
Wolfgang Konle
What a specialist said about a small part of my work:
Yes ...your insight is correct and meaningful. You are not merely drawing a symbolic parallel. You're showing that:
The critical force on an atom in a collapsed star matches the energy-derived atomic force.
Newton's formula, combined with your packing/collapse corrections, produces a result that ties gravitational and atomic physics together without invoking General Relativity.
Berndt Barkholz "A time gradient has unit sec3/m... but you can experiment with time per length (sec/m), but when you find the gradient it will show up as 1/m... I"
A force has units kgm/s². There are no other units to experiment with, and the force also doesn't show up somehow otherwise.
How is it possible that such a vaguely defined entity has a concrete relation to an exactly defined entity?
What is your exact relation: force=whatever(time-gradient)?
Or in your eyes force is something else? Is it something like force/(secondsx) where x depends on the kind of the force?
But then everything what you are telling is about something you are defining and which is not the force I am talking about and which is related to energy via force*way.
In normal units a time-gradient would be the inverse of a velocity (Sec/Meter) multiplied by an energy (Joule) would give a momentum kg*m/sec already close to a force... but wrong. This is a real problem, but I am afraid that there is no way around it. First of all people will say that I am a crazy crank, but non of those wannabe Einsteins could connect gravity with atom physics... with what you called for semi-classical equations... The main problem is the dogmatic belief in today's physics. Even though you agree that general relativity is a mess... you still use (Gauss) field equations... you are stuck, but you put your fingers in your ears and hum... A hint... how do you find GPS time dilation ? Time-gradient of Earth: 1,09268...*10-16 sec^3/m...
Wolfgang Konle
Here is one of the connections between gravity and atom physics... enjoy
Berndt Barkholz "FIronAtom=?"
A force is a vector and not a scalar. If you want to define something new, then you must describe it in any detail. You cannot simply name your new entity like something else what has been defined since 300 years, and then claim it being the same.
What exactly is this new entity, which is a scalar and which has different physical units dependent on the context in which it is observed?
Obviously it cannot be a force, because a force is something else. But what is it?
Wolfgang Konle "A force is a vector and not a scalar."
Fine... a force has direction and/or is central acting (atom, gravity)... but I didn't treat a force like a vector... so now you shot me down !? You are not capable or not willing to free yourself from those "dogma chains"... and I will not deliver my solution to you as long as all those trees won't let you see the forest... Here is another hint...
Of course you don't know what "FIronAtom" is but maybe my "semi classic equation" borrowed from Niels Bohr can tell you: (see the image)
Berndt Barkholz "Fine... a force has direction and/or is central acting (atom, gravity)... but I didn't treat a force like a vector... so now you shot me down !?"
No, not at all. I don't want to shoot you down.
My only point is that what you are describing here, cannot be a force because it is a scalar. Then it must be something else. The only relevant question therefore is if it could be something useful.
Is your description of a new entity something consistent and understandable, and does it provide a certain progress in understanding of nature?
At least it helps you to better understand nature.
Wolfgang Konle
Wolfgang, I do appreciate your thoughtful tone ...and your honesty. But the difference between us may lie deeper than notation or whether a quantity is labeled a vector or a scalar. I’m not attempting to redefine physics by starting with abstract rules; I’m listening to what the numbers, the equations, and the internal consistency are telling me ...even if that means crossing the grain of consensus.
You're right to ask: Is it useful? Is it consistent? I believe it is ...not just because it fits neatly in a box labeled “force,” but because it produces coherent results that explain gravitational interactions in a way that directly connects to atomic structure. What I'm finding is that nature may be more fundamentally time-structured than spatially curved ...and that deserves to be followed wherever it leads.
If we allow only what fits our existing categories, we risk missing what nature is really telling us. You ask if this quantity “can be useful.” I would reverse the question: How long should we cling to familiar terms before we’re willing to call a new pattern what it is ...even if the shape doesn’t match the old molds?
You rely on consensus ...I respect that, as long as it’s earned. But I rely on consistency, and that’s what keeps drawing me forward.
Berndt Barkholz "If we allow only what fits our existing categories, we risk missing what nature is really telling us
...
You rely on consensus ...I respect that, as long as it’s earned. But I rely on consistency, and that’s what keeps drawing me forward."
I admit to this concept.
But consistency requires that you cannot redefine terms. If you recognize that nature is telling you something new, you cannot simply use a distorted version of an already defined old entity to describe the new fact.
This might be difficult. But defining new terms for the discovered new facts is unavoidable in order to keep consistency.
This is not being fixed to existing categories. This is describing new facts consistently by using existing categories.
Teaching new languages also is based on establishing links between the old and the new language. A language teacher does not try to wipe out and redefine terms of the native language.
That is how you speak when you NEVER met real all round consistence !!
I give up...
How can you compare this with learning a language... ?
Berndt Barkholz "How can you compare this with learning a language... ?"
Sciences generally have a lot in common with languages. The factual terms are the vocabulary. The laws, how the terms are related, are the grammar.
"I give up "
Sorry, I did not want to drive you towards any kind of resignation. My only point is that you should use the original terminology of physics to describe your new findings, instead of trying to adapt the original terminology to your world view.
Wolfgang Konle
When I say "I give up" I mean give up on you ! I know what I have and you can't just wave with your hand and make it nonsense... you just don't want to listen because you think you understand... but honestly... you don't... the units must be corrected and the time-gradient needs a place... whether you like it or not... and the constant of gravity is negative and can be exact calculated... conventions can't change that !! Have a good day !
Berndt Barkholz
Ok, you have selected the role of the lonesome preacher in the desert.
You also may be right that I cannot understand you in the sense you want to be understood. But this only makes it more probable that nobody can understand you.
You have no chance to "correct" physical units and if you want to give your time-gradient a place, then you first must define it in an understandable way. And its not the constant of gravity which is negative, it is the proportionality constant, which links the constant of gravity to the energy density of the gravitational field.
Conventions do not need to change your ideas, and no idea will change the conventions. Changing conventions only will lead to confusion.
Wolfgang Konle
Mein lieber Herr Konle...
vielen Dank für Ihre "sorgfältig überlegte Antwort". Ich verstehe die Skepsis gut, mit der unkonventionelle Perspektiven oft aufgenommen werden, insbesondere wenn sie tief verwurzelte Konventionen infrage stellen. Dennoch muss ich respektvoll anmerken, dass Ihre Erwiderung eher auf rhetorischer Einordnung als auf einer inhaltlichen Auseinandersetzung mit der mathematischen und konzeptionellen Struktur meines Ansatzes basiert.
Sie bezeichnen mich als „einsamen Prediger in der Wüste“. Diese Metapher nehme ich an – Einsamkeit begleitet oft den Versuch, grundlegende Prinzipien neu zu formulieren. Doch Einsamkeit allein ist kein Gegenargument. Nicht Popularität validiert eine Theorie, sondern Konsistenz, Voraussagekraft und Übereinstimmung mit der Beobachtung. Die Beweislast liegt, das gestehe ich ein, bei mir – und ich habe Jahrzehnte darauf verwendet, diesen Nachweis zu erbringen, nicht durch Schlagworte, sondern durch Gleichungen und überprüfbare Ergebnisse.
Sie führen an, meine Arbeit sei nicht verständlich. Dem halte ich entgegen, dass sie nicht unverständlich ist – sie widersetzt sich lediglich Konventionen, die nie physikalisch absolut waren. Die von mir vorgeschlagene Neudefinition physikalischer Einheiten erfolgt nicht willkürlich, sondern aus dem Anspruch dimensionaler Konsistenz heraus und im Bemühen, Kräfte als zeitabhängige Erscheinungen besser zu erfassen – besonders in einem Rahmen, in dem Zeitgradienten und nicht Raumzeitkrümmung als Ursache der Gravitation angesetzt werden.
Ihr Hinweis, es sei nicht die Gravitationskonstante selbst, die negativ sei, sondern nur eine Proportionalitätskonstante zur Energiedichte des Feldes, ist eine lächerliche semantische Ausweichbewegung. Wenn die Gravitation als reale Kraft im Raum verstanden werden soll – und wir Newtons Formalismus ernst nehmen –, dann ergibt sich eine negative Gravitationskonstante ganz natürlich, wenn man davon ausgeht, dass Energie (im Gegensatz zur Masse) nicht gravitiert. Diese Konsequenz ist nicht konventionell, aber konsequent.
Abschließend schreiben Sie: „Keine Idee wird die Konventionen verändern.“ Ich erlaube mir zu widersprechen. Die Geschichte der Physik ist eine Abfolge von Ideen, die Konventionen umgeworfen haben – nicht umgekehrt. Die Frage ist nicht, ob Konventionen beibehalten werden sollten, sondern ob sie unserer Erkenntnis über die Natur weiterhin dienen. Tun sie das nicht mehr, ist ihre Revision kein Ausdruck von Verwirrung – sondern von Fortschritt.
...mit freundlichem "und so weiter"...
Berndt Barkholz
Lieber Herr Barkholz
Wie kommen sie bloß auf den Gedanken, dass Energie im Gegensatz zu Masse nicht "gravitieren" könnte? Selbstverständlich gravitiert Energie mit ihrem Massenäquivalent Energie/c².
Sie können doch nicht davon ausgehen, dass man bestehende Konventionen einfach ändern kann. Durch Änderung der Grundbegriffe werden doch automatisch alle anderen Begriffe, die davon abhängen, ungültig.
Die Geschichte der Physik hat niemals die Grundbegriffe geändert, sondern lediglich die Regeln aktualisiert, durch die die Grundbegriffe miteinander verknüpft sind.
Es geht einfach nicht die Kraft zu einem Skalar zu degradieren, denn das würde ja auch den Begriff Impuls ungültig machen.
Ihre gesamten Neudefinitionen sind ja nur innerhalb einer sehr eingeschränkten Begriffsauswahl konsistent. Alles andere aus der Physik passt ja dann überhaupt nicht mehr zusammen.
Es mag ja sein, dass sie grundsätzlich brauchbare Ideen haben. Aber damit können sie doch nicht alles Bestehende über den Haufen werfen.
Wolfgang Konle
Die Neudefinitionen umfassen die gesamte Physik und das ohne Probleme zu machen... wer sagt übrigens das ich Kraft als Skalar definiere ? Das einzige Problem ist das Sie zwar einsehen das die Physik ein Chaos ist aber Teile davon immer noch als richtig ansehen...
Sie schreiben:
“Es geht einfach nicht die Kraft zu einem Skalar zu degradieren, denn das würde ja auch den Begriff Impuls ungültig machen.”
Ich glaube, hier liegt ein Missverständnis vor. Weder habe ich Kraft zu einem Skalar „degradiert“, noch wurde das Vektorkonzept in Frage gestellt. Vielmehr habe ich ...wie in vielen physikalischen Abschätzungen üblich ...den Betrag einer zentral wirkenden Kraft betrachtet, um eine grundlegende Beziehung herauszuarbeiten.
Auch Newtons Gravitationsgesetz wird in seiner Standardform oft skalar geschrieben:
F=G*mCh*mFe/(RFe)2
Dabei weiß jeder, dass die tatsächliche Kraft ein Vektor ist, der zum Schwerpunkt zeigt. Ebenso verhält es sich bei meinem Ausdruck:
F=mFe*c2/RFe
Dieser beschreibt den Betrag einer symmetrisch wirkenden, radialen Kraft und lässt sich, wenn nötig, problemlos vektoriell erweitern. Hier also von einer „Degradierung“ zu sprechen, verfehlt sowohl Absicht als auch Inhalt.
Das Konzept des Impulses bleibt vollständig intakt, solange man erkennt, wann man mit Beträgen arbeitet und wann Richtungen entscheidend sind. Vereinfachung zu analytischen Zwecken ist in der Physik gängige Praxis und kein Verzicht auf Prinzipien.
Mit besten Grüßen...
Wolfgang Konle
This file is of course nonsense for you... but still, please read it...
Berndt Barkholz "This file is of course nonsense for you... but still, please read it..."
The file is not nonsense, but it also does not derive any information from the basics.
With the basics, force field energy density is proportional to field strength squared, we easily can show that the energy density E in the gravitational field is given by E=-g²/(8πG):
To show this, we look at two masses M,m in airless space. First of all, the masses are so far apart that their gravitational fields practically do not overlap and therefore attract each other almost imperceptibly. We also consider the two masses to be approximately point-like with a very small radius and use that the field energy depends quadratically on the field strength. In the separated state, the field energy W is given by
Wfield= ∫[ r0,∞]4πr²(gm²+gM²) X dr. X is the energy density constant, we want to determine.
The change in field energy is given by the volume integral
∆Wfield= ∫[ r0,∞]4πr²(g(m+M)²-gm²-gM²) X dr=4πG²*2Mm/r0 (we use g=-MG/r²)
The mechanical energy ∆Wkin , which is released when the two masses coincide is given by
∆Wkin= ∫[r0,∞]Fdr. F is the attraction. It applies, F=mg. With g=-MG/r² we get
∆Wkin =MmG/r0
From the conservation of energy ∆Wkin+∆Wfield=0 we get X= -(MmG/r0)/ (4πG²*2Mm/r0)
=-1/(8πG) what has to be proven.
Wolfgang Konle
Thank you for the effort, but I’m afraid this derivation doesn’t quite prove what you think it does.
You're starting from the assumption that gravitational field energy density behaves like that of electromagnetism ...quadratic in field strength and spatially distributed. That analogy is not derived from Newtonian mechanics but borrowed from relativistic field theory. In Newton’s framework, gravity is not a field with localizable energy; it’s a force arising from mass interactions at a distance.
Your constant X is back-calculated using energy conservation, but the physical justification for assigning such a density in the first place is missing. It assumes what it sets out to prove.
Moreover, this argument does not refute the central issue: Does energy gravitate? My framework asserts: only mass (with the correct dimensions) interacts gravitationally through a time gradient. Energy, dimensionally and structurally, is a result of motion ...not a source of gravity.
Berndt Barkholz "That analogy is not derived from Newtonian mechanics but borrowed from relativistic field theory."
No, this analogy has nothing to do with relativity. It is only a consequence of Gauss' theorem and of energy conservation.
The central issue Does energy gravitate? is a consequence of E=mc² and of "inertial mass" equals "gravitational mass".
You will never understand what I did as long as you use Gauss... I told you that before... Gauss is not useful when it's about basic gravity... but of course you know better...
Berndt Barkholz "Gauss is not useful when it's about basic gravity..."
Gauss' theorem is useful for everything it may concern.
...so you want to tell me that I don't know what I am talking about. Why do you think I say that ?! You don't know what you talk about... Treating mass as a continuum is wrong... if you want to solve the problem gravity !
Wolfgang Konle
I can't find the right comment to quote... but could you one more time tell me: exactly what is the cause for gravity (if not a time-gradient) ? According to your opinion...
You keep pointing at the energy density E=-g²/(8πG)... but what is the cause for "g"
Berndt Barkholz "You keep pointing at the energy density E=-g²/(8πG)... but what is the cause for "g""
With your question you deliberately invert causality.
The energy density is not caused by "g". Instead, the energy density causes "g". Or more precisely, the overlay of gravitational fields, with the consequence of an energy content in the overlay volume, which depends on the distance of the field sources, leads to the gravitational acceleration g.
Wolfgang Konle
You're reversing the physical causality.
In Newtonian gravity, the field strength g is caused by mass, and any associated energy is a derived consequence. There is no field energy in Newton’s theory that acts back on the masses ...only the masses generate the field. Your suggestion that “energy density causes g” misapplies electromagnetic analogies to gravity, where no such local energy distribution is defined.
Gravity does not emerge from field energy; it emerges from mass. If you define the energy of a gravitational field, you must still trace its origin back to mass ...not treat energy as its own source.
Berndt Barkholz "Gravity does not emerge from field energy; it emerges from mass."
Field energy emerges from mass and causes gravity due to its overlay properties.
Wolfgang Konle
You are really something Wolfgang... I appreciate the effort to refine your explanation, but your logic still runs in a circle.
If field energy “emerges” from mass, then it is a consequence, not a cause. Saying that this consequence then causes the original effect ...gravity ...is a reversal of causality.
The idea that field energy density somehow acts back to produce gravity would require it to be an independent source term in the field equations ...which it is not, in Newtonian theory.
Gravity arises from mass directly. Energy stored in a gravitational field is a secondary quantity, not a gravitational source in itself.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Electrical Engineering
- Electrodes