[Kartazion (OP)]

There is a speed. Would you say that speed is without energy?

... Because the ball is moving and has mass, it has a set amount of Kinetic Energy.  ...

It's just a matter of detail. The photon moves with the same principle while it is massless.

... it has a set amount of Kinetic Energy.  ...  The KE does not make the ball move, the ball has KE because it has a velocity. 

The movement then has Kinetic Energy, right? In other words, an object that moves in a vacuum at the same speed has the same amount of energy. This is the energy I am talking about. This kinetic energy of the ISS station at 7.7 km/s which prevents the station from falling. This KE energy which allows the object in orbit not to fall to earth and corresponds to the energy which defies the force of gravity.

Conclusion. We really need the energy to keep the object from falling. Without any energy there would be the collapse of the whole universe.

[Kartazion (OP)]

I see that the celestial orbit mechanics is indeed made up of potential energy as well as kinetic energy.

In astrodynamics, the vis-viva equation*, also referred to as orbital-energy-invariance law, is one of the equations that model the motion of orbiting bodies. It is the direct result of the principle of conservation of mechanical energy which applies when the only force acting on an object is its own weight. In other words the law of conservation of energy according to which the sum of kinetic and potential energies is constant at any point of the orbit.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis-viva_equation

... The ISS is moving at about 7.7 km/s.  If the speed of the ISS was stopped it would fall straight down to the earths surface.  One way to visualize this is to think of the ISS (or ANYTHING orbiting) as a body that constantly falling towards the earth but its speed makes it miss the earth.
There is no repulsive force involved.

Ok this is not a repulsive force. It's just kinetic energy involved that keeps the station from falling.

The idea of ​​directly associating the cause of energy in relation to gravity becomes evident in the model that I am trying to establish.

The tunnel effect

Kinetics of the particle at the bottom of the potential well, and avoidance of the singularity:




At x = 0 when the particle is going faster (don't rely on GIF for speed), its kinetic energy allows it not to fall into the singularity. Indeed his avoidance is done by his horizon. The force of gravity corresponds to the matter attracted towards this singularity, while the energy pushes it out.

Perhaps we could see in it some metric associated with Einstein-Cartan's theory in relation to the avoidance of this singularity.

It is said that the tunnel effect is a purely quantum effect which cannot be explained by classical mechanics. False.

When the particle passes through matter, then its kinetics are reduced. This means that the particle due to its loss of kinetics falls into the lower energy level of the potential well.





The kinetic disturbance from the ZPE of the particle makes it possible to remain in the false vacuum, until a potential barrier slows it down and then falls through the virtual slit.

I must specify that the avoidance of the sigularity, by the kinetics of the particle at the bottom of the potential well, also occurs when the particle is at rest in the false vacuum, namely the ZPE; And which corresponds to the same celestial mechanics of the orbit of the planets around the star. In other words when the particle is at rest at the bottom of the well and it undergoes the ZPE disturbance of the false vacuum, then we understand that the particle orbiting around the gravitational singularity, rather than a vibratory disturbance. Indeed for an observer the reproduction of the path of the particle is expressed by a sinusoidal signal in time or elliptical by its magnitude. True vacuum is total collapse.

[Kartazion (OP)]

@Origin, after a dozen messages we now agree that the kinetic energy of an object in orbit is in a way a repulsive force towards gravity. Do you? It is clear that without kinetic energy, the object falls by gravitational attraction! So kinetic energy is the cause that directly challenges gravity.

[Origin]

@Origin, after a dozen messages we now agree that the kinetic energy of an object in orbit is in a way a repulsive force towards gravity.

No, of course not.  The only force acting on the object is the attractive force of gravity.

I was rather hoping you would have abandoned this idea--

If there was no repulsive energy then we would fall into the black hole or on the sun. So yes there is energy that pushes us as much as gravity attracts us

[Kartazion (OP)]

@Origin

Ok energy is not a force.
Ok energy is not repulsive.

But kinetic energy is linked with the force of gravity.

I just need the energy to be related to gravity for my model to work. That it.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Here are roughly the 4 fundamental steps of the gravitational oscillation model in relation to atom and matter in pictures. These are only the overview of the chapters that I could develop:

1 - Gravitational Oscillator

Spoiler: show

2 - Radiation and Oscillation

Spoiler: show

Erratum: The electric charge is provided by the singularity, that is to say the flow zone on the picture and not by 'setting charge' of the antimatter like drawing

3 - Radiation and Atom

Spoiler: show

4 - Matrix

Spoiler: show

[Origin]

But kinetic energy is linked with the force of gravity.

How?

[Kartazion (OP)]

But kinetic energy is linked with the force of gravity.

How?

The general expression for gravitational potential energy arises from the law of gravity and is equal to the work done against gravity to bring a mass to a given point in space. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html

Newton's laws are used for the solution of many standard problems, but often there are methods using energy which are more straightforward. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/flobj.html

There is also Energy Storage System Based on Gravity and Kinetic Energy https://themarketgossip.com/2021/08/07/energy-storage-system-based-on-gravity-and-kinetic-energy-market-size-status-and-forecast-2021-2027-energy-vault-gravitricity-quidnet-energy/

[Origin]

I just need the energy to be related to gravity for my model to work

You don't have a model.  You have a conjecture that doesn't line up with physics.  Saying kinetic energy is somehow a repulsive force from a massive object is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole.

[Kartazion (OP)]

You don't have a model.  You have a conjecture that doesn't line up with physics.

My model is a harmonic oscillator. Isn't it physics?

Saying kinetic energy is somehow a repulsive force from a massive object is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole.

Didn't you see what I wrote?

Ok energy is not repulsive.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Saying kinetic energy is somehow a repulsive force from a massive object is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole.

At the earlier stage of the development of the general theory of relativity (years 1913-1916) Einstein supposed that the energy of matter and the energy of gravitational field are equivalent as a source of gravitational field and included the gravitational energy in the right part of his equations. Later, after discussions with Schr¨odinger and other scientists about the non-tensor and non-local nature of the energy-impulse of the gravitational field, Einstein changed his mind. Since 1917 he never included the gravitational energy in the right part of his equations and pointed out that a single source of gravitational field is the energy-impulse tensor of ordinary matter and electromagnetic field: ‘Tik represents the energy which generates the gravitational field, but is itself of non-gravitational character, as for example the energy of the electromagnetic field, of the density of ponderable matter etc’ (Einstein 1953). This Einstein’s point of view was shared by Schrödinger (1955), Eddington (1975) and Chandrasekhar (1983). In addition, Schrödinger (1955) pointed out that the total mass of the Universe can change when the Universe expands. https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.01541

Stress–energy tensor

This density and flux of energy and momentum are the sources of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity, just as mass density is the source of such a field in Newtonian gravity.

[Kartazion (OP)]

After all that has just been said, I can see that you did not know that there was a link between energy and gravity.

Look, one more link:

The gravitational binding energy of a system is the minimum energy which must be added to it in order for the system to cease being in a gravitationally bound state. A gravitationally bound system has a lower (i.e., more negative) gravitational potential energy than the sum of the energies of its parts when these are completely separated—this is what keeps the system aggregated in accordance with the minimum total potential energy principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_binding_energy


I wish to know your analysis and explanation to what you have declared, to see how you do physics:

...  The ISS is moving at about 7.7 km/s.  If the speed of the ISS was stopped it would fall straight down to the earths surface.  One way to visualize this is to think of the ISS (or ANYTHING orbiting) as a body that constantly falling towards the earth but its speed makes it miss the earth.

Why if the speed of the ISS was stopped it would fall straight down to the earths surface?

[Kartazion (OP)]

Hello all.

Are there any people among you who understand this paper? https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05295

If so, here is the quick and symoptic conclusion of my model of singularity avoidance in relation to the Higgs field.

Revision of the potential energy of the Higgs field in relation to singularity avoidance, and correction of the metastability of the true / false vacuum.
 
The kinetics of the particle make it possible to avoid the singularity through the Higgs field. The Higgs field corresponds to the path taken by the particle. In other words, the Higgs field corresponds to the path taken by the particle thanks to the kinetic energy and makes it possible to avoid the singularity.

If the kinetic energy of the particle is sufficient and if the range of the energy condition allows to pass the potential barrier the singularity avoidance occurs, but during the attenuation of the kinetics of the particle, this causes by the quantity of lower energy to fall towards the singularity and to reach the true vacuum.

In conclusion, the metastability of the vacuum is shifted and is represented in three parts. The first corresponds to the false vacuum of the Higgs field at the level of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, follows in two the true vacuum of the Higgs field which is in fact the Zero Point Energy and is therefore not the true vacuum since in three we have the true absolute vacuum which corresponds to the total collapse.

Without any kinetic energy the contour of the potential barrier corresponds to the path of the orbit of the particle in Zero Point Energy in relation to its inertia.




References:
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05295
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5226

@Colin2B @Eternal Student thank you for your answers.

I do have an account on arXiv. But we must get an endorsement from another user to submit an article to category physics. Can any of you sponsor me? I just wish to begin with publishing the basis of the gravitational oscillator and not the whole theory that I have published here. Publish the gravitational oscillator adding to singularity avoidance would be great but more complicated to be accepted.

Regards.

[Kartazion (OP)]

...  The ISS is moving at about 7.7 km/s.  If the speed of the ISS was stopped it would fall straight down to the earths surface.  One way to visualize this is to think of the ISS (or ANYTHING orbiting) as a body that constantly falling towards the earth but its speed makes it miss the earth.

Why if the speed of the ISS was stopped it would fall straight down to the earths surface?

The answer is simple. It is inertia through angular kinetic energy.

Regards

[Origin]

The answer is simple. It is inertia through angular kinetic energy.

I suppose you keep trying to bring in kinetic energy because you think supports your idea.  The bit I don't like is the part about a repulsive force from a mass, like a star.  That notion has nothing to do with KE.  The orbital distance depends on the velocity not the KE.  In other words the ISS or a bolt would have the same orbital radius if their velocities were the same.

[Kartazion (OP)]

inertia

[Origin]

inertia

density

[Origin]

Hello all.

Seriously?  You marked your own post, in your own thread, as the best answer?

That's rather pathetic...

[Kartazion (OP)]

I suppose you keep trying to bring in kinetic energy because you think supports your idea.

No, I don't think it. That's what physics says. The specific orbital energy (or vis-viva energy) of two orbiting bodies is the constant sum of their mutual potential energy and their total kinetic energy, divided by the reduced mass.

The bit I don't like is the part about a repulsive force from a mass, like a star.

Yes it's because you do not know your subject well.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0001011 Attractive and Repulsive Gravity
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.1379 Repulsive gravity model for dark energy
[3] https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.01541 A repulsive force in the Einstein theory

The orbital distance depends on the velocity not the KE.

Yes the orbital distance does not depend on KE.

Seriously?  You marked your own post, in your own thread, as the best answer?

That's rather pathetic...

Amen.

[Kartazion (OP)]

I use the application of conventional physics. Namely the kinetic energy of the particle for the harmonic or anharmonic oscillator, and inertia to simulate the orbiting motion of the particle or mass around a more massive object. According to the oscillator model that I propose, the orbit(s) is located at approximately at x=0 in the potential well of the oscillator, and corresponds to the Zero Point Energy. The initial Zero Point Energy disturbance (ZPE) corresponds to the movement of the particle located in the false vacuum in orbit around the gravitational singularity.

The idea now is that the inertia of an orbiting body would correspond to the movement of its mass occurring by the force of gravity, but by an avoidance of the gravitational singularity thanks to the barrier of potential. In other words the particle slides along the barrier of potential and corresponds to the motion of inertia following the orbit in relation to the object with the greatest gravity at the center of the system. Indeed in the conventional illustration, the orbit is the closed curve representing the trajectory that a celestial object draws under the effect of gravitation and inertial forces. It should therefore be remembered that the own deformation by sinking of the celestial object in the curvature of spacetime creates all around it a barrier of energy potential from higher edges.

In reality for inertia to work, it would seem that the universe turns on itself and is rotational.