[Origin]

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

I know the subject well enough to see that your conjecture that the earth stays in orbit around the sun because there is both an attractive force and a repulsive force from the sun is pure bullocks.

[Kartazion (OP)]

I know the subject well enough to see that your conjecture that the earth stays in orbit around the sun because there is both an attractive force and a repulsive force from the sun is pure bullocks

Are you now saying that gravity is not used in the functioning of the solar system?

[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.

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.

The Higgs field and potential are also used well to be able to represent the metastability of the universe, as well as the quantum particle. Being able to make the link between GR and QM through the gravitational oscillator by explaining the Higgs mechanism becomes very interesting, even important. If we were to make the jump of a massive object over the potential barrier and the gravitational singularity, then we would draw through the particle, the curve of the Higgs field. It is therefore understood that in order to do this, the kinetic energy must be accordingly. We would therefore tend to believe that for a quantum particle that the step of crossing a black hole would become easier. I guess that its avoidance is related to the electromagnetic force.

In a more speculative definition and given our knowledge of the gravitational sigularity followed by the time dilation, we could associate the center of the earth as such. Indeed for the quantum particle it becomes easier to imagine the avoidance of the singularity at the level of the terrestrial core through the gravitational oscillator.

[Kartazion (OP)]

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.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Some relevant references:

Black holes and Higgs stability We study the effect of primordial black holes on the classical rate of nucleation of AdS regions within the standard electroweak vacuum. We find that the energy barrier for transitions to the new vacuum, which characterizes the exponential suppression of the nucleation rate, can be reduced significantly in the black-hole background. A precise analysis is required in order to determine whether the the existence of primordial black holes is compatible with the form of the Higgs potential at high temperature or density in the Standard Model or its extensions. https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04018

Unification of gravity and the harmonic oscillator on a quantum black hole horizon II: Perturbative particle scattering and Feynman amplitudes n Article I, a harmonic-oscillator model of a universe of n quarks is infinitesimally modified to eliminate the background reference frame. As a result, quark trajectories exhibit the unification of gravity and the harmonic oscillator near the horizon of a quantum black hole, a region that is approximately flat in space-time. Constituent quarks are confined to composite particles by cluster decomposition rather than a binding force. Here, the composite-particles are input for a perturbation model of particle-exchange interactions. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307136


Gravitational and harmonic oscillator potentials on surfaces of revolution In this paper, we consider the motion of a particle on a surface of revolution under the influence of a central force field. We prove that there are at most two analytic central potentials for which all the bounded, nonsingular orbits are closed and that there are exactly two on some surfaces with constant Gaussian curvature. The two potentials leading to closed orbits are suitable generalizations of the gravitational and harmonic oscillator potential. We also show that there could be surfaces admitting only one potential that leads to closed orbits. In this case, the potential is a generalized harmonic oscillator. In the special case of surfaces of revolution with constant Gaussian curvature, we prove a generalization of the well-known Bertrand theorem. https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3930

[Origin]

I know the subject well enough to see that your conjecture that the earth stays in orbit around the sun because there is both an attractive force and a repulsive force from the sun is pure bullocks.

Are you now saying that gravity is not used in the functioning of the solar system?

No, I am saying your ignorant misrepresentation of gravity has nothing to do with the functioning of the solar system.

[Kartazion (OP)]

No, I am saying your ignorant misrepresentation of gravity has nothing to do with the functioning of the solar system.

How Do Objects Stay in Orbit?
An object in motion will stay in motion unless something pushes or pulls on it. This statement is called Newton's first law of motion. Without gravity, an Earth-orbiting satellite would go off into space along a straight line. With gravity, it is pulled back toward Earth. A constant tug-of-war takes place between the satellite's tendency to move in a straight line, or momentum, and the tug of gravity pulling the satellite back. https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orbit-58.html

[Kartazion (OP)]

No, I am saying your ignorant misrepresentation of gravity has nothing to do with the functioning of the solar system.

Gravity is what holds the planets in orbit around the sun. 
Gravity is the force by which a planet or other body draws objects toward its center. The force of gravity keeps all of the planets in orbit around the sun. https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/what-is-gravity/en/

So?

[Origin]

Gravity is what holds the planets in orbit around the sun.
Gravity is the force by which a planet or other body draws objects toward its center. The force of gravity keeps all of the planets in orbit around the sun. https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/what-is-gravity/en/

So?

So the predictions using the current theories of gravity match observations.  Your ideas on gravity do not and are clearly wrong.

One of the more absurd claims by you is this:
"It is said that black holes swallow matter. There would then be as much matter to swallow as to push back to maintain the size of the galaxy. "

There is no 'push back' by a black hole or any other massive object.  This is pure and simple fantasy.

[Kartazion (OP)]

So the predictions using the current theories of gravity match observations.

Predictions a bit like your hundreds of Google examples:

Google this phrase:  "tunnel through earth simple harmonic motion".  You'll get hundreds of examples.

...  Your ideas on gravity do not and are clearly wrong.

My ideas and those of others:

If you drilled a hole through the axis of the Earth from pole to pole, and put a long thin vacuum chamber in it then dropped an object into one end of that chamber , it would fall down the hole, picking up speed.
And it would be moving very fast when it reached the centre of the Earth so it would carry on going until it reached the other pole where it would stop, and then fall back down again
It would "bounce" back and to .
If the density of the Earth was constant (rather than increasing as you go down). the body would exhibit  simple harmonic motion. ...

One of the more absurd claims by you is this:
"It is said that black holes swallow matter. There would then be as much matter to swallow as to push back to maintain the size of the galaxy. "

There is no 'push back' by a black hole or any other massive object.  This is pure and simple fantasy.

Fantasy? Absurd? "Fountain I will never drink your water"

Research Shows Black Holes Push Away Their Dinners https://earthsky.org/space/stellar-mass-black-holes-gorge-winds-push/

New research shows the first evidence of strong winds around black holes throughout bright outburst events when a black hole rapidly consumes mass. https://www.ualberta.ca/science/news/2018/january/black-hole-winds-interfere-with-mealtimes.html

[Kartazion (OP)]

Hello.

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

Here is an excerpt from the paper in question:

Einstein gravitation is known to give rise to the formation of singularities at high densities unless the dominant energy condition is made invalid by the occurrence of new physics: we show that such a new physics can be the already present Higgs sector of the standard model of particle physics.

In 2016, with the detection of the gravitational waves, we have witnessed the last and most impressive experimental confirmation of Einstein gravity; in 2012, with the discovery of the Higgs scalar, we have had the final and most important experimental confirmation of the validity of the standard model of particle physics. But despite all the success that the two theories have separately, never the less they still suffer the lack of a combined framework. Even worse is that, theoretically, Einstein gravitation appears to be affected by the Penrose-Hawking theorem, stating that if the dominant energy condition holds then the high density gravitationally-induced formation of singularities is inevitable; in turn this means that the avoidance of singularity formation due to gravity can be done only by invalidating the condition on the energy, and thus what we would have to do would be to modify the structure of the energy tensor by allowing different contributions of matter distribution: ...


I conclude for the Higgs field; The condition of energy described in the paper, is equal to 'Higgs's energy' (potential and kinetic). Indeed the Higgs field is plot at x=0 around the false vacuum and the zone ZPE and avoid the singularity (gravitational attraction) thanks to the energy.

Official description:

The first term is the kinetic energy of the field. The second term is the extra potential energy when the field varies from point to point. The third term is the potential energy when the field has any given magnitude.

Gauge invariance means that certain transformations of the gauge field do not change the energy at all. If an arbitrary gradient is added to A, the energy of the field is exactly the same. This makes it difficult to add a mass term, because a mass term tends to push the field toward the value zero.


My question is now, are there any of you who work with the Penrose-Hawking theorem?

Regards

[BilboGrabbins]

Hello.


1 - Constitution of the gravitational oscillator:

This linear oscillator uses a particle of mass m oscillating vertically along the vector G of gravity. The oscillation has two phases. The first is the phase of the fall of the particle with the force G, and the second is the reverse phase which corresponds to the vertical ejection of the particle given by a pulse of energy E.

Rising oscillation of the particle = E
Descending oscillation of the particle = G.






Gravity is energy, but inverse to E for our case:

E - G = 0



Momentum of the particle in the oscillator:





Speed ​​and acceleration of the particle according to the constant g:





2 - Heisenberg uncertainty principle

The integration of the constant g and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:




Momentum k given to the particle after the pulse:




Coherent states of the oscillator and the uncertainty principle:





3 - Electron and speed of light:

The quantum gravity called z would then make the particle fall from the surface, to then reappear thanks to the energy. As much the constant g has an acceleration on a relativistic object, then z would be a constant accelerating the quantum particle to reach the speed of light.

We can determine the amount of energy it would take to move the electron to c-1:





Quantum gravitational potential energy of the electron and constant z:





Part II

Substitution of the mechanical stress of impact and rebound caused by the particle during its fall, by a continuity of the kinetic energy of the particle towards the antimatter.





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.

I haven't boiled down even a quarter of this post a d already it's ill defined. You said gravity is energy.

Gravity isn't even a force and energy in the common sense is a force exchange carrier. Gravity is actually a pseudoforce from the first principles of relativity. Somy immediate question would be, how is gravity an energy? And if you think gravitons exist as an argument for it, well good luck on that one. The field theorists didn't even understand what gravity was in GR, they went all crazy and tried to create a quantum field for it in a desperate attempt to unify physics. We now know these early attempts were not only fruitless, but riddled wotj divergences (aka. Singularities) and it's commonplace nowto believe gravity is manifestly incapable of being quantized.

The only way I could comprehend gravity related to energy is by saying all particles contribute to the curvature of spacetime. The energy required to "cause" the effects of curvature/gravity is encoded in the stress energy tensor. Still to me, this is different to saying gravity "is" energy. Gravity is the effect of a particle of any gravitating mass warping spacetime around it. I was grappling a theory a while back that maybe curvature came first and produced energy, hence they're different animals.

[BilboGrabbins]

Gravity is what holds the planets in orbit around the sun.
Gravity is the force by which a planet or other body draws objects toward its center. The force of gravity keeps all of the planets in orbit around the sun. https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/what-is-gravity/en/

So?

So the predictions using the current theories of gravity match observations.  Your ideas on gravity do not and are clearly wrong.

One of the more absurd claims by you is this:
"It is said that black holes swallow matter. There would then be as much matter to swallow as to push back to maintain the size of the galaxy. "

There is no 'push back' by a black hole or any other massive object.  This is pure and simple fantasy.

I'm not saying the OP has a good understanding of gravity, but I must correct you. I don't know if it is just the definition of "push back," ugh, but supermassive black holes rarely get to eat much because they to eject most of the matter by a sling shot effect. It's one of those surprising things to learn. I was taught this little factoid from an astrophysicist and it was a bit of a surprise because we tend to think anything that comes close will eventually fall in.

[BilboGrabbins]

Plus the ejection of matter from a rapidly spinning supermassive black hole has nothing to do with regulating matter in a typical spiral galaxy. Just thought I'd get that in there as well.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Somy immediate question would be, how is gravity an energy?

I guess the Stress–energy tensor

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.

I'm not saying the OP has a good understanding of gravity, but I must correct you. I don't know if it is just the definition of "push back," ugh, but supermassive black holes rarely get to eat much because they to eject most of the matter by a sling shot effect. It's one of those surprising things to learn. I was taught this little factoid from an astrophysicist and it was a bit of a surprise because we tend to think anything that comes close will eventually fall in.

Yes I'm talking about 'pushing back' the matter. You, you talk about ejection. It is the role of energy to 'push back' matter from gravity of supermassive black holes. You are correct on that point. The sling shot effect keeps stars away from the supermassive black hole and orbits around it. As well as the accretion disk which uses this same principle, as well as the rings of Saturn. In one way it's gravity vs energy.

Plus the ejection of matter from a rapidly spinning supermassive black hole has nothing to do with regulating matter in a typical spiral galaxy. Just thought I'd get that in there as well.

Discovery of a Relationship between Spiral Arm Morphology and Supermassive Black Hole Mass in Disk Galaxies https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1918007_Discovery_of_a_Relationship_between_Spiral_Arm_Morphology_and_Supermassive_Black_Hole_Mass_in_Disk_Galaxies

Since a great number of galaxies are spiral in shape and there is a black hole in the middle of them, is the shape of the galaxy influenced by the “sucking” power of the black hole, like water spiraling into the drain of the bathtub? https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2019/11/since-a-great-number-of-galaxies-are-spiral-in-shape-and-there-is-a-black-hole-in-the-middle-of-them-is-the-shape-of-the-galaxy-influenced-by-the-sucking-power-of-the-black-hole-like-water-spiraling-into-the-drain-of-the-bathtub

[BilboGrabbins]

As far as stress energy is concerned, I suppose you could say that. It's just that it refers to all types of fluctuations and gravity is the effect of this in the form of curvature.

[Kartazion (OP)]

As far as stress energy is concerned, I suppose you could say that. It's just that it refers to all types of fluctuations and gravity is the effect of this in the form of curvature.

Yes. It's just that it refers to all types of energy fluctuations and gravity, and is the effect of this in the form of curvature.

This is valid for a macroscopic mass at rest and in orbit by inertial movement. At rest because if this mass were submissive to an oscillation, then it would be subject to kinetic energy. It is difficult to be able to visualize the difference which I carry between a mass at rest in inertial movement in the false vacuum in ZPE and a mass at work by kinetic energy. The kinetic energy of mass uses the same direction as the gravity vector, unlike the resting mass which it orbits.



The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems are the culmination of work carried out in general relativity by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The aim of this work was to determine under what condition the formation of a hole black or a gravitational singularity is inescapable.

Indeed for Higgs field, it interprets by its great gravitational potential energy, a kind of curvature opposed to the singularity. This posibility is due to the avoidance of singularity, and not to its inescapable of collapse. This is what it makes characteristic* of the Higgs mechanism. In the case of a quantum particle, the gravitational potential energy of the Higgs field integrates into the particle an optimum or maximum mass due to this singularity avoidance

*singularity avoidance = enormous potential energy = Higgs mechanism

[Kartazion (OP)]

Einstein gravitation appears to be affected by the Penrose-Hawking theorem, stating that if the dominant energy condition holds then the high density gravitationally-induced formation of singularities is inevitable; in turn this means that the avoidance of singularity formation due to gravity can be done only by invalidating the condition on the energy, and thus what we would have to do would be to modify the structure of the energy tensor by allowing different contributions of matter distribution: this has been attempted in the past several times by employing a variety of spinning fields, and it is a general feeling that, if not spin, at least some new type of matter field should enter the game in question. https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05295

The energy condition is that of Higgs, because its large mass can be represented by large energy during avoiding singularity. Maybe a adaptation of the energy tensor must be established according to the Higgs mechanism.

[Origin]

I'm not saying the OP has a good understanding of gravity, but I must correct you.

What are you correcting me about?  I am saying there is no repulsive force of gravity, which is what the OP thinks.  Do you agree with him?

[Kartazion (OP)]

The dark energy due to expansion is.

Repulsive gravity model for dark energy https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.1379