[Bored chemist]

then how to explain the maintenance of the distance of the earth from the sun, if the sun does not turn on itself?

We can explain it with science.
Have you tried that option?

[Kartazion (OP)]

then how to explain the maintenance of the distance of the earth from the sun, if the sun does not turn on itself?

...
...

@Bored chemist this was how to explain it other than the potential energy barrier produced by the deformation of the potential field due to gravity. It's nice to cut the sentence out of context

[Zer0]

Hello K!
🙂
Amusing OP!
👍
I found the Last Image, in Reply #25 quite Interesting.

Mandelbrot Set?

Ps - i voted for the 3rd option, im a layman science enthusiast.
✌️

[Origin]

I do not understand the question.

It seems like you are dodging the question.

I use the magnitude of the value of the potential to claim therein a barrier of energy of potential. As a result, the object at a sufficient distance from the earth, keep by shape memory the position at the distance of r whether it is moving or not.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense.  Please just show how you calculate the orbital distance and the velocity of a satellite.

Clearly, if the object does not fall, it is because it is retained by this barrier of potential.

No this is wrong no barrier is needed.  This has been explained to you already.  Orbital mechanics are all that is needed.  If you know how far away the satellite is from a given mass you can calculate the velocity of the satellite.  It doesn't seem like you are able to calculate anything from your statements.  It just seems like arm waving and no science.

[Kartazion (OP)]

@Zer0 don't pay attention to H. I'm talking about simple and true things. For example, passing over a black hole would have an enormous gravitational potential energy. Simply. I say that passing over a black hole would draw the curve of the Higgs field.

[Bored chemist]

then how to explain the maintenance of the distance of the earth from the sun, if the sun does not turn on itself?

...
...

@Bored chemist this was how to explain it other than the potential energy barrier produced by the deformation of the potential field due to gravity. It's nice to cut the sentence out of context

It didn't matter how much of your nonsense I clipped or quoted; it's still nonsense.
My reply is still valid; we can address the question you asked by using science.
Orbital mechanics- the stuff learned as a teenager- works just fine.

On the other hand, any sensible form for gravitational potential apart from an inverse square law gives you unstable orbits.

Why do you reject this obvious explanation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball

[Zer0]

images.jpeg (17.64 kB . 662x463 - viewed 2673 times)

I should have presented the Exact image i was referring to in Reply #25.

Yes H!
Correct, as always!
👍

The Logistics Map.
(Fractals)

I had watched a video on the topic by Veritasium on Utube.
But He somehow flipped the image over, like rotated it, top spinned and then like connected it...or rather showed it to be Consistent & part of a Mandelbrot Set.
(Sorry, I'm unable to explain/express it clearly due to my limited understanding, please do watch the video once.)

Copyrights & Credits - Veritasium Channel/YouTube.

Anyways, to be Honest...what amuses me in the image, is that every time i come across it, i always somehow delusionally connect it with the Image/Map/Diagram of the Universe.
(Like from a singularity, to division & expansion, leading towards complete chaos)

Ps - Any of you remember that User by the nickname " pasala " ?
Trying to explain their own version/model of Gravity...with constant references to elevators & rockets.
That OP/thread was Rightfully stopped.
But i Must say, that User(pasala) was Commendable.
They perhaps Never tried to jump the Ban, or force their viewpoints again.
They portrayed Integrity & Self Respect.
👍

[Kartazion (OP)]

Nothing to do with Mandlebrot set, which is a map of  complex numbers with a certain property.

Wrong.

Verhulst-Mandelbrot-Bifurcation do it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set#/media/File:Verhulst-Mandelbrot-Bifurcation.jpg

It didn't matter how much of your nonsense I clipped or quoted; it's still nonsense.

My mistakes and my nonsense do not prevent the proper functioning of my gravitational oscillator. I have plenty of time to be able to correct it and have it published.

My reply is still valid; we can address the question you asked by using science.
Orbital mechanics- the stuff learned as a teenager- works just fine.

So why doesn't the moon collapse on earth? By what mechanism is it retained? Must admit that there is a barrier to something that holds it back ...

But my quest remains. Please, how does the moon stay at a distance without collapsing to earth with an answer for everyone?

Why do you reject this obvious explanation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball

Who tells you that I reject it?

1 - I do not reject the idea of ​​the functioning in force. And 2 the calculations are the same and do not change. I am not inventing anything new. I'm just making the point of a gravitational potential energy barrier. 3 - With the link you present, you are not showing why and by what mechanism the moon stays away from the earth.

I should have presented the Exact image i was referring to in Reply #25.

Wikipedia would have been enough.

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:LogisticMap_BifurcationDiagram.png

But He somehow flipped the image over, like rotated it, top spinned and then like connected it...or rather showed it to be Consistent & part of a Mandelbrot Set.

Yes exactly. In addition, I turned it to be able to make the link between the oscillators potential energy wells cascaded and the logistic-bifurcation.

[Origin]

So why doesn't the moon collapse on earth?

Because of its tangential velocity relative to earth.

By what mechanism is it retained?

See above.

Must admit that there is a barrier to something that holds it back

We must admit you don't know what you are talking about.

But my quest remains. Please, how does the moon stay at a distance without collapsing to earth with an answer for everyone?

See the answer to the first question.

Who tells you that I reject it?

You do.

I am not inventing anything new. I'm just making the point of a gravitational potential energy barrier.

That is pseudoscience garbage.  There is no repulsive force from the earth on the moon to keep it in orbit.  You are simply confused.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Because of its tangential velocity relative to earth.

Tangential velocity does not explain the physical mechanism of why gravity is no longer exerted. It reminds me that Einstein equivalence principle said that acceleration makes us subject to gravity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

So if acceleration turns it into gravity (in calculations), then why (by what mechanism) does your velocity prevent gravitational collapse?

See above.

See the answer to the first question.

There is no point in cutting my single question to be able to make the same answer three times. It's ridiculous.

We must admit you don't know what you are talking about.

This implies that I am too stupid. But you speak in the first-person plural. So you also speak for others and it's daring.

You do.

You tell nonsense. Please show me how and where.

That is pseudoscience garbage.  There is no repulsive force from the earth on the moon to keep it in orbit.  You are simply confused.

I did not speak of repulsive force but just a barrier. You are confused. Simply.

[Kartazion (OP)]

French source. Does not exist in English on wikipedia. @Origin was not aware that I knew what I was talking about.

Spoiler: show

Une barrière de potentiel est un niveau élevé d'énergie que doit posséder provisoirement un objet mécanique pour suivre une trajectoire au long de laquelle globalement moins d'énergie est requise, la partie au-del�  de la barrière lui étant impossible s'il n'atteint pas ce niveau.

Cas de la pesanteur
Soit un objet de masse m se déplaçant sur une courbe se trouvant dans un plan vertical. La pesanteur vaut g. On a traité le cas des cuvettes de potentiel (cf puits de potentiel) et on a introduit les « points tournants » tels que mgH(s) = E.

Dans le cas d'une barrière de potentiel,

soit la particule possède une énergie mgH° > mg Hmax, et la particule passe la barrière et se trouve avec une probabilité = 100 % de l'autre côté : T =1.
soit la particule n'a pas une énergie suffisante et elle est réfléchie par la barrière : R = 1.
Une remarque anodine de Corinne (1757?), reprise par Appell (CRAS 1878), fait intervenir la symétrie suivante : si on change g en - g, la cuvette se transforme en une barrière. Mais si l'on change t en un temps imaginaire it, alors on retrouve la solution de la barrière comme prolongement analytique de la solution pour la cuvette.

L'exemple évident est celui de la cycloïde en forme de pont, symétrique par conséquent de la cuvette-cycloïde isochrone de Huygens : au lieu de trouver des solutions en sin t et cos t, on trouvera des solutions en sh t et ch t.

Appell fit la même remarque pour le cas du pendule simple : il retrouva alors la double périodicité de sn z, cn z et dn z, qu'avait trouvé bien auparavant Jacobi (et partiellement Abel).

Cette remarque de Corinne servira �  Wick pour comprendre l'effet tunnel « semi-classique » de Gamow et retrouver très vite les célèbres lois de transmission tunnel, si utiles en radioactivité, en effet thermoélectrique, en fusion thermonucléaire, en spintronique, en chimie quantique : cet effet de la particule-onde sera dû �  l'évanescence de son action S(E). https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barri%C3%A8re_de_potentiel

Here is the translation of google translate:

A potential barrier is a high level of energy that a mechanical object must temporarily possess in order to follow a trajectory along which overall less energy is required, the part beyond the barrier being impossible for it if it does not. not reach that level.

Case of gravity
Let be an object of mass m moving on a curve located in a vertical plane. Gravity is g. We have dealt with the case of potential cuvettes (cf. potential well) and we have introduced the “turning points” such that mgH (s) = E.

In the case of a potential barrier,

either the particle has an energy mgH °> mg Hmax, and the particle crosses the barrier and is found with a probability = 100% on the other side: T = 1.
either the particle does not have sufficient energy and it is reflected by the barrier: R = 1.
An innocuous remark by Corinne (1757?), Taken up by Appell (CRAS 1878), involves the following symmetry: if we change g to - g, the basin is transformed into a barrier. But if we change t in an imaginary time it, then we find the solution of the barrier as an analytical extension of the solution for the cuvette.

The obvious example is that of the bridge-shaped cycloid, therefore symmetrical to the isochronous Huygens cup-cycloid: instead of finding solutions in sin t and cos t, we will find solutions in sh t and ch t.

Appell made the same remark for the case of the simple pendulum: he then found the double periodicity of sn z, cn z and dn z, which Jacobi (and partially Abel) had found long before.

This remark by Corinne will serve Wick to understand Gamow's “semi-classical” tunnel effect and very quickly find the famous tunnel transmission laws, so useful in radioactivity, in thermoelectric effect, in thermonuclear fusion, in spintronics, in quantum chemistry. : this effect of the particle-wave will be due to the evanescence of its action S (E).

[Origin]

 

Tangential velocity does not explain the physical mechanism of why gravity is no longer exerted.

Nonsensical statement.

It reminds me that Einstein equivalence principle said that acceleration makes us subject to gravity.

It doesn't say that.

So if acceleration turns it into gravity

Nonsense.
If you would just read about orbital mechanics you would see that your ignorant pseudoscience is trying explain something that is already understood.  This is something that has been understood for 400 years!

[Kartazion (OP)]

It doesn't say that.

Ignorant. The equivalence principle in theory of general relativity says that well.

Gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent

Nonsense.
If you would just read about orbital mechanics you would see that your ignorant pseudoscience is trying explain something that is already understood.  This is something that has been understood for 400 years!

Even since the relativity of Einstein? Well done. I understand why you are unable to make the link between GR and QM. The OP must try to make this link.

[Origin]

Ignorant. The equivalence principle in theory of general relativity says that well.

The equivalency principle doesn't state this:
"It reminds me that Einstein equivalence principle said that acceleration makes us subject to gravity."

Even since the relativity of Einstein? Well done. I understand why you are unable to make the link between GR and QM. The OP must try to make this link.

Stop waving your arms around and learn some physics.

[Kartazion (OP)]

The equivalency principle doesn't state this:
"It reminds me that Einstein equivalence principle said that acceleration makes us subject to gravity."

Now, Mr. is playing on words without development and argued. I find the insistence of your rebuttals weird. It's suspicious*.

With the equivalence principle and in the small regions of space time, you cannot tell the difference between upward acceleration and downward gravity.

* You will tell me, explain the Higgs field as I explain it (with a level 101) can scare the compared to the total confusion of the interpretation of the QM with a endless list of formulas, while the the explanation of the universe remains very simple and you already know it.

... For example, passing over a black hole would have an enormous gravitational potential energy. Simply. I say that passing over a black hole would draw the curve of the Higgs field.

[Origin]

With the equivalence principle and in the small regions of space time, you cannot tell the difference between upward acceleration and downward gravity.

That is a reasonable definition of the equivalency principle.
 

Now, Mr. is playing on words

Playing with words?  No, you are the one saying absurd things like, "So if acceleration turns it into gravity"!

You will tell me, explain the Higgs field as I explain it (with a level 101) can scare the compared to the total confusion of the interpretation of the QM with a endless list of formulas, while the the explanation of the universe remains very simple and you already know it.

I see, since the math is difficult it is easier to just make up stuff.  Well I agree making stuff up is easier, but it is not very useful.
 

... For example, passing over a black hole would have an enormous gravitational potential energy. Simply. I say that passing over a black hole would draw the curve of the Higgs field.

Simple and wrong.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Simple and wrong.

arXiv - Black Hole singularity avoidance by the Higgs scalar field

[Kartazion (OP)]

... For example, passing over a black hole would have an enormous gravitational potential energy. Simply. I say that passing over a black hole would draw the curve of the Higgs field.

Simple and wrong.

As usual you do not justify the reason of your negation. Why the black hole does not have enormous gravitational potential energy?

[Origin]

As usual you do not justify the reason of your negation. Why the black hole does not have enormous gravitational potential energy?

An isolated black hole would have no potential energy, that follows from the definition of gravitational potential energy.

However the main issue with your statement is this:

Simply. I say that passing over a black hole would draw the curve of the Higgs field.

That is simply gibberish.

[Kartazion (OP)]

As usual you do not justify the reason of your negation. Why the black hole does not have enormous gravitational potential energy?

An isolated black hole would have no potential energy, that follows from the definition of gravitational potential energy.

Maybe isolated. But what are your sources? Once again they are badass.

Here are mine:

As the gravitational field of a black hole extends to infinity, its potential energy extends similarly and contributes also to its observed mass. arXiv - The Gravitational Energy of a Black Hole

However the main issue with your statement is this:

Simply. I say that passing over a black hole would draw the curve of the Higgs field.

That is simply gibberish.

Sorry but it's because you don't understand not much about it.

But now that you know that the potential energy exists up to infinite values, and that in addition there is a mass link, then it is easy to integrate the Higgs potential into the field.