Is it correct to say, any object has a huge amount of potential energy?
Let's say if it is a $ 1 kg $ metal ball.
1. Now if we consider it together with a planet some 500 light years away (or if we consider Neptune), then there is potential energy between this metal ball and that planet
2. With the absence of anything else, that is, if we only consider two physical bodies, of this metal ball and the planet, the metal ball will accelerate towards that planet.
3. But since it is so small, let's consider that we the metal is only 1000 meter away from that planet
4. Now we can say, there is a certain amount of potential energy here, as the metal can accelerate towards the surface of the planet and even do some damage -- it is not a negligible amount
5. Let's just say it is 1 Joule of potential energy, to make it simple. 1023
Some people claim that let's say at 1000000 meter, the potential energy approaches zero, but there shouldn't be the case, because if it is 1 Joule at 1000 m, then it has to be more potential energy at 2000 m, and so forth. So at 1000000 m or 1 trillion meter, the potential energy is 1 Joule or greater.
6. Now if we consider this metal ball with the 100 trillion of planets in the universe. Between the metal ball and each of the planet, there is a non-negligible amount of potential energy -- at least 1 Joule.
7. So therefore, this metal ball has 1 Joule x 100 trillion = 100 trillion Joule of potential energy
8. And this applies to any object on Earth or in the universe at all
9. And in fact, since if we consider any two objects (or two planets) at one time, then we can use the $N$ choose 2 calculation, and see that the amount of potential energy has an $ n^2 $ amount, if we consider $ n $ objects, such as $ n $ being 100 trillion
Is the above true? If it is true, that means in the universe, there is a huge amount of potential energy, even if we are just to look at a $ 1 kg $ metal ball? 651