univeral theory

i think now i can with above seventy five percent appreciate the concept of inertia. thanks ajb and thanks swonsont

i apologise if sound like i have misunderstood ajb or happen to have falsely accused him. but now adress please; can something be relative to its self? if yes, please explain with some relevant examples.

It is now approaching 100 years since the inception of general relativity from Elbert Einstein. Despite the enormous labour of scientists world wide backed by heavy resource investments from government agencies and private institutions along with highly developed and accurate experimental instruments, the application of general relativity is still a mysterious scientific topic. No any scientific topic ever achieved such a highly enormous scientific research labour, research resources, research instruments, research time and political favour in the history of scientific research for implementation like general relativity. Apart from astronomy where most of their scientific conclusions are based on speculative experiments, general relativity is claimed to have a significant role. In our ordinary science,classical mechanics is still at hand in engineering and philosophy, not to mention that up to the present, general relativity is still failing to reconcile with quantum mechanics. And when its essence is questioned by engineers, philosophers and even ordinary understanding; we conclude with our answer of the century that the mathematics of general relativity are too complex and sophisticated and complicated to understand and thus its implementation in mechanical world is still a mystery! But a mystery to whom and from whom, I really don’t know. Now the question is; what is general relativity? a kind of science of its own, a theory or a poppycock? If it is a science,can some one explain to me its mechanical relevance from which we can infer its experimental facts? If it is a theory, can someone explain to me its postulate from which we can infer its physical relevance? If it is a poppy cock, can some one have a ground to prove this and yet remains a scientist?

In post #1 I ask wheather energy is relative, absolute or both which you confirm in post #6 that it is a direct question and that energy is only relative and supprisingly refering to swanswot who said brilliantly that energy is frame dependent at post #4 which I agree with him. Only that at post #5 I inquire in the kind of frames up on which energy depends.according to me in post#1 ,energy has both an absolute and relative frame in reality which you dispute by cautioning us not to confuse any frame of energy with the principle of energy conservation at post#6 .which according to me in post#10 i see that it is necessary to avoid this confusion if we can identify the reference frame of as conserved in an isolated system. So supprising that at #11 you say that”In any inertial frame, or indeed any frame, you will have local conservation of energy. You do not need to pick any special frame for this,though depending on your system there maybe natural frames to use” as if local variable are frame indipendence and quite inconsistent with your original stand point from which energy is only relative, you say that there are differnt frames from which energy can beobserved natuarally.and when I peak a self frame for you and ask wheather it can be relative to its self, you claim to have lost the flow of the urgument. Is it the belief of universal theory that is possessing you to make all these mambo jambo rambling or is it you who is possessing this belief? Now imagine your post13 , an absolute frame has never been a zero frame,but rather an equilbrium frame of two or more variables represent by an integer differential of absolutely 1.

let me suppose that depending on my system, iam using a self frame from the natural frame point of view; according to your highly accredited scientific pedigree, you would like to conclude by saying that "some thing can be relative to its self! isn't it"?

1- whatever the combination; but in what frame does it have to differ from what they combine to produce? and in wht frame does the final product deffer from its combination? 2- if posible, may you please postulate the equation you wrote in words? yes; then what is the reference frame of energy conserved in an isolated system?

what is this mysterious thingy of "total energy" and in what frame does it differ from the conglomerated kinetic energy of massive velocity?

what do you practically mean by frame dependence? because according to what reality can prove a frame of reference is either relative or absolute

How is this one different from what ever, I don’t know. And because I do not know, that is why am asking from those that I expect to be knowing. The question is just simple and clear; is energy relative,absolute or both? And can any one help me with an answer based on either mainstream science or speculation so as long it is relevant to experimental facts.

So I was thinking; that if not to be drowned into the scientific “insanity” of universal theory, what else? The more I have been trying to get rid of it, the more I have been trapped into the “crazy” idea! The central idea of this theory postulates that; “With relative frames, all things are; but just different reference frames of the same thing. And with absolute frame, the framework of every thing is oppositely symmetrical and complementary. These opposites are smoothly and recursively circulated through conflicting patterns that are directly proportional to the regulation of the relative frames of the concerned absolute framework and inversely proportional to the coordination pressure of this framework; And when the equilibrium constancy/framework of the complementary opposites is established, the reciprocal of the symmetry prevails and the unity of all things in their absolute frame is realized” zaid. We all hold this physical truth; that energy is energy- no more, no less. And that the universe is energy at action-reaction system. But then why is it that the universe is not made up of the same objects with the same actions, reactions,size, shape, behavior, colors, etc? The answer is self evident that even though energy is energy in absolute frame, but its framework is equivalent to energy per its “relative frames of energy reaction due to its actions” which is (√E)- . + (or as they shall be represented by letter S in this discussion) thus; ER/+ .-(√ER) = ER. Where; ER is the reaction of energy. In absolute frame, energy remains the same. And this is calculated by ER/+ .-(√ER)=ER. Where; ER/+.-(√ER) is the framework of energy reaction. But due to the difference in the relative frames of energy reaction due to its actions(S), relative frames of this framework can be measured differently. Such that, ER/+ .-(√ER)=Q.t, where ‘Q’ is consciousness and ‘t’ is time. And thus; ER/S = ER/+ .-(√ER) = Q.t= ER. consciousness and time are the basic relative frames of energy reaction as a function of its actions. What is the negative of energy reaction and what is its positive? Remember that the positivity and negativity of energy is a relative phenomenon that is based on the framework of energy actions or reactions. With in the relative frames of energy reaction, a negative energy is that which takes the negative dimension of reaction which in this case it is time. And a positive energy is that one which takes the positive dimension of reaction and in this case it is the consciousness. Thus; 1- Time is therange of conserving the cycle of energy reaction per a unit of its actions. 2- Consciousness is the pressure of conserving the coordinationand regulation of energy reaction per a unit of its actions. Why time is the negative of energy reaction and consciousness is its positive at its basic frame of actions? The implicit coefficient of a complex variable is 1 since multiplying it by 1 does not change the terms of the variable. Thus E=1E. Then our equation of energy turns out to be 1E/+ .-(√1E)= 1E/+1E . -1E = 1E. 0E = E. thus; with in the framework of absolute E, 1E is the +E and 0E is the –E . The negativity of time with in the framework of energy: Energy with out physical substance is abstract, and from the reference frame visible energy abstract energy equals zero energy. When we talk of zero energy (0E), in physical sense it sounds daft, but in conservation of energy it is not flawed. 0E does not mean absolutely no energy at all. But it means that with in the framework of energy at action, one frame of S is physical while the other is abstract – and the influence of abstract energy can be detected with in the reaction of the physical energy. For an abstract phenomenon to influence physical phenomena is not flawed. Ordinary examples include; dreams that influence physical reaction, abstract visions that influence physical ejaculation, time that influence physical predictions -though it can not be physically detected, etc. Remember that Time is the pressure of energy reaction in form of cycle range of a given action of energy. This implies that all actions of energy are subject to time measures. Time from the reference frame of consciousness is abstract energy, so it is 0E = -E and its framework is t(+.-√t)=0. Time from the reference frame of absolute energy is infinity. We all know that consciousness is finite which is an opposite dimensional reaction of infinite time, so with in the framework of energy, time is - E and consciousness is the +E. and the framework of time from the reference frame of absolute energy is t(1/(√t)+.-)=infinity. Thepositivity of consciousness with in the framework of energy: Consciousness can be demonstrated as a web network of actions - reactions. And In networking, the responsiveness of the network depends on its coordination and regulation procedures. We all know that the network of consciousness is fractal in nature. Thus; (Q/(((√Q)+ .-)∩((Q(√Q)+.-)((√Q)+ .-)/Q) ) ))=Q, where Q is consciousness. Remember well that the positive of S with in the framework of energy was +E = 1E, and that –E= 0E. In order to conserve our absolute E, with in the framework of relative E which is + .-(√E) ,it implies that; +E = 1E = 1Q =Q. Relativeframework of energy and the foundation of force Whenever there is a change, there is a cause of that change- and this cause is called a force. A force is any influence that cause changes to a free system/body. But really where is the source of this influence which cause changes with in energy - that is just energy? In mechanics, when two or more opposite frames of a given mechanical system confront each other, force is created and change is inevitable. Even though the confrontation between the opposing frames of energy is the foundation of force-as the determiner of changes, but the reaction of this change depends on the pressure. Pressure is the physical quantity that determines the rate, dimensions and magnitude of reaction made by energy in form of consciousness and time. Any mechanical system can regulate its self provided that it is programmed to do so. And any mechanical system can only be programmed to regulate its self through the mechanism of action-reaction. And because the universe is a system of energy at action- reaction, from the reaction of energy point of view; energy can change its form, size, shape, colour, behavior, etc and this explains why the universe is made up. The universe is a mechanical system capable of self regulation. The pressure of energy reactions as a function of relative actions made by different opposite frames of energy verses their equilibrium framework is the fundamental influence of universal regulation. Such that; E=MQ2 – where, M is mass measured in kilograms and Q2 is the speed of consciousness measured in kilometers of area occupied by energy coordination and regulation per hour. E=MQ2: this implies that, with in the absolute frame of energy; its framework is composed of mass and the speed of consciousness. Where mass is the action frame of energy (positive frame) and the speed of consciousness is its reaction frame (negative frame). And with in the relative frames of energy, mass or speed of consciousness are just different opposite relative frames of the same energy. Such that; at the equilibrium frame of M verses Q2, energy is conserved in form of bifurcation. When the speed of consciousness is less than mass, energy is conserved in form of invisible energy. But when the speed of conscious is more than mass, energy is conserved in form of vacuum. Mass: this is the pressure of conserving energy due to its entanglement and the actions of this entanglement. Such that; any change in mass is directly proportional to the change in entangled particles and inversely proportional to the pressure of its actions. And thus: M= ħX 2, where M is mass, X is energy conserved in units of spontaneous symmetry breaking and ħ is reduced Planck constant. What is energy conserved in units of spontaneous symmetry breaking “X” That is to say: (ħ /1/+ .-(√ ħ) )=1, ∂ (ħ /1/- .+(√ ħ) )=1+or-1. Where; ħ is reduced Planck constant. The speed of conscious: this is the rate of energy coordination and regulation due to consciousness and time. Such that any change in the speed of consciousness is directly proportional to the regulation of time and inversely proportional to the consciousness– thus Q2= Qt, where t is time, Q2 is speed of consciousness and Q is consciousness Bifurcation; this is the system of energy conservation due to its displacement and velocity. At equilibrium frame of displacement verses velocity, energy is conserved in form of work. At less velocity than displacement; it is in form of black hole. At more velocity than displacement, energy is conserved in form of dark matter. Thus B =DV2- where B is bifurcation, V is velocity and D is displacement. And from the reference frame of bifurcation E =DV2t; where E is energy and t is time Work; is the pressure of conserving the regulation of energy due to force and displacement. At the equilibrium frame of force verses displacement, energy is conserved in form of gravitation. At less force than displacement, energy is conserved in form of bosons. And at greater force than displacement, energy is conserved in form of fermions - thus, W=FD2 where, F is force, D is displacement and W is work. And from the reference frame of work, E= F.D2.t Gravitation; is the pressure of conserving the regulation of work due to charge and displacement. At the equilibrium frame of charge end displacement, energy is conserved in form of turbulence. At less charge than displacement, work is conserved in form of quarks (magnetic force). At greater charge than displacement, work is conserved in form of leptons (electrical force) - thus G= yD, where Y is charge and D is displacement. And from the reference frame of gravitation E =y.D2.t where t is time Turbulence; this is the pressure of conserving the regulation of energy as a function of kinetic energy and energy conserved in units of explicit symmetry breaking. At the equilibrium frame of energy conserved in units of explicit symmetry breaking and kinetic energy, turbulence is in form of atoms. At more kinetic energy than energy conserved in units of explicit symmetry breaking, turbulence is conserved in form of molecules. At more energy conserved in units of explicit symmetry breaking than kinetic energy, energy is conserved in form of wave – particles. Thus Tb = KE.K2; where; Tb is turbulence, KE is kinetic energy and K2 is energy conserved in units of explicit symmetry breaking. And from the reference frame of turbulence E = KE.K2.t What isenergy conserved in units of explicit symmetry breaking “K2” That is to say; (KE /1/(((√ KE)+ .-)∩( KE ((√KE)+ .-)((√ KE)+ .-/ KE) ) ))=1, ∂ (KE /1/(((√ KE)+ .-)∩( KE ((√KE)+ .-)((√ KE)+ .-/ KE) ) ))=1+or-1. Where; KE is kinetic energy equivalent to1/2MV2. Referenceframe of energy reaction And the perception of energy Energy reacts in form of mass through a conversion factor of its velocity square. From the relative frames of mass, this conversion factor is the speed of entanglement which is conserved in form of the speed of consciousness - and this is E=MQ2. And from the absolute frame of mass, the conversion factor of its velocity square is equivalent to the speed of light- and thus E=MC2. For example; thunder and lightening are fractal in reaction and are caused at the same time, but the difference in the procedural cycles of coordinating and regulating there reaction, subjects them to different times of effect, and this is what we call E=MQ2 – where; M is mass and Q2 is the speed of consciousness. But again thunder and lightening are just different forms of energy reaction due to the velocity square of mass in its absolute frame whose conversion factor is the speed of light – and this is what is called E=MC2. Thus E=MV2. From your life experience, you have been encountering a plenty of physical objects; say people, buildings, trees, rocks, water bodies etc. suppose you are asked to identify what you have seen say a tree, the fact is that you would have seen ENERGY from the reference frame of the massive speed of consciousness in of a living plant called a tree, in luganda we call it omuti and in Arabic it is called shajarat, in Chinese prof. A pibernick can help or else I will tell you soon.But regardless of the name you would all have called what you saw, the fact is that you have all seen absolutely the same thing which is a mass of a living plant. That is true. But suppose an expert in physics, chemistry or biology was the one to identify what he saw concerning the very same tree and he says that, I see energy as a function of different recurring square fields call them gravitational fields, velocity fields, magnetic fields, kinetic fields, bra…bra…..bra…..conserved smoothly and recursively into different quantum units of organs and then cells and then molecules and then atoms and then particles and then and then. ..! Would he be wrong? No, he would be true, especially depending on the accuracy of his presentation. But what makes these two people of seemingly different answers to be both true, here is the core of energy as a function of the speed of the reference frame of its perception. The first person through the relative frame of mass sees energy in form of a living plant even with out recognizing how many procedural cycles step by step through which his consciousness or mind has undergone to establish an equilibrium framework between different relative frames of entangled forms of conserved energies (colors, light, substances, dimensions etc) at less than a blink of an eye - up on which there equilibrium is the recognition of their reciprocal unity in form of a mass of a living plant. The speed of the reference frame of this person is E=MQ2 and it is equivalent to the speed of entanglement with in the relative frames of mass. Further still, the approach of the second person does not mean that energy is not equivalent to E=MQ2, but it is rather a reference frame of energy perception through its massive velocity square. Such that; through the relative frame of energy E=MV2. And through the absolute frame of energy E=MQ2. p.s. Щ = E Җ; where Щ is mind, E is energy and Җ is soul. Univaso theory and the entanglement of energy Entanglement refers to the correlation between the parts of a given system. In physics, entanglement can be observed both in classical mechanics point of view and in quantum mechanics point of view. In quantum mechanics, entanglement of energy is popularly referred to as quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement can be defined as the correlation between the regulation of the relative frames of energy with in the same quantum state in form of yin and yang. Such that any change in the yin frame of energy (particle) is directly proportional to the proportionate change in the yang frame of energy (particle). And in classical mechanics; entanglement is popularly observed as the inverse square law. If we can still remember the definition of Mass - as the pressure of conserving energy due to its entanglement and the actions of this entanglement. And that; any change in mass is directly proportional to the change in entangled particles and inversely proportional to the pressure of its actions, this brings us directly to the equivalence of massive actions and pressure. Pressure is the physical medium through which the regulation of different actions of energy is coordinated subject to the size, distance, position, centre and trajectory of the confrontation between entangled frames of energy. Such that; any change in pressure is directly proportional to the speed of the absolute frame of entangled particles and inversely proportional to the coordination of this pressure between its relative frames. And this is equivalent to the inverse square law. In physics, an inverse-square law is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity orintensity is inversely proportional to the square ofthe distance from the source of that physical quantity…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law. And if we take the physical quantity of this law as mass and the maximum square of the distance from the absolute frame of this mass as the speed of light, then the inverse square law will be equivalent to MC2, where M is mass and C2 is the speed of light. Remember that; any change in pressure is directly proportional to the speed of the absolute frame of entangled particles and inversely proportional to the coordination of this pressure between its relative frames. Zeeper made an interesting experiment of this postulate. According to zeeper’s experiment…www.members.shaw.ca/warmbeach/INDEX3.htm. When you multiply the diameter of the image of the moon that is reflecting off of a mirror placed on the ground by the factor of light's velocity which is (299,792,458), it is directly equivalent to the exact physical diameter of the moon.1.159cm x 299,792,458 = 3474.8 kilometers = the moon's true diameter. This correlation between the relative frames of moon’s light occurs due to the framework of coordination between the relative frames of pressure as a function mass and the factor of light’s speed from this mass,which is equivalent to MC2 and its framework is subject to the inverse square law as observed through its reflection on the mirror. Thus entanglement in its physics sense is equivalent to thepostulate of universal theory. Univaso theory’s Turbulence and the Wave - particle duality Any absolute frame of entangled particles creates waves as a form of pressure of its kinetic energy, such that any change in kinetic energy is directly proportional to the change in energy conserved in units of its explicit symmetry breaking and inversely proportional to the centre of entangled particles; and this is the foundation of wave particle - duality. Wave particle duality is equivalent to KE.K2; where; KE is kinetic energy and K2 is energy conserved in units of explicit symmetry breaking of kinetic energy. The centre of entangled particles is the centre of mass, and the centre of mass is the centre of pressure of waves. perhaps it is just a little too much of writing! but the central concern is that, is energy relative,absolute or both?

1-[latex] \frac{\frac{s}{1}}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex] Q: for a more meaningful applied definition, it is quantum frames of energy measurements.

When it comes to Q, we should only consider the following two equations: 1- (s/1/+ .-(√s) )=1, for spontaneous symmetrybreaking. Such that; ∂(s/1/- . + (√s)) =1+or-1. 2- (s/1/(((√s)+ .-)∩(s((√s)+ .-)((√s)+ .-/s) ) )=1, for explicit symmetry breaking. Such that; ∂ (s/1/(((√s)+ .-)∩(s((√s)+ .-)((√s)+ .-)/s) ) ))=1+or-1. And there fore; M= ħ (∂Q2); where M is mass, ħ is the "h-bar" reduced plank constant ∂Q2 is the change in Q2.

What I mean is that an equation can be dimensionally sound, but physically flawed. And is there any physical means by which E=MC2 is dimensionally sound but physically flawed?

From the above Q equations, s is energy conserved in units of work.

Your argument is perhaps correct. But its explanation depends on an already known framework of these particles in question. Such that; when we have A at hand, we can automatically predict B. But then how can you explain this framework in a predictable way, such that; the entanglement of the particles in question can have the prediction you are arguing about such that the phenomena you are talking about can be completely predictable?

I can be sorry if Iam not able to understand the concerns of your question. But according to the formulation of Q ; it is that equation of the phenomenological frames of conserving energy per each unit of energy measurements. And thus the quantum frames of energy conservation equations.

good. But how can we explain the overlapping of a wave function in a predictable way?

In absolute terms “happening at the same time” is the simultaneity of the two opposite reference frame of an absolute phenomenon- which is not subject to time dilation. While in relative terms’ “happening at the same time” is the simultaneous coordination and regulation between these two opposite reference frames-which is subject to time dilation. And If you can make the coordination and regulation of its concerned reference frames instantaneous; then their will be simultaneity.

As Q is a unitless quantity, then from these equations; [latex] \frac{\frac{s}{1}}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex] Or [latex] \frac{s}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex] , S=x= conservation. and Q is the quantum frames of energy conservation as E=WQ.

When a matter and its corresponding anti matter collide, their annihilation leads to the formation of a new particle. But what really causes the collision of these particles from the conservation of energy point of view?

Just to stress the point made above that; as E=WQ2 is dimensionally equivalent to E =MV2, then E=WQ2 is dimensionally sound. And thus; “The framework of every thing is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite in nature. This opposition is framed through conflicting symmetry that is directly proportional to the regulation of their framework and inversely proportional to its coordination; and when the equilibrium framework of opposites is established, the reciprocal of the symmetry prevails and the unity of everything is realized” zaid.

corrections E=MVf Where;E is energy, M is mass and Vf is velocity field Step 1, You remember very well that; we said that E= W.Q2, where E is energy, W is work and Q2 is the quantum frames of work conservation. And as W.Q2 = g.d, this implies that E= g.d; where g is gravitation and d is displacement. Step 2, We all know that gravitation (g)=m.a where m is mass and a is acceleration. This implies that E=m.a.d. and because a.d form the same group of velocity field(Maxwell field) in field theory, this implies that a.d= velocity field and thus E= MVf. Step 3, We also know that Energy is measured in units of Joules. And that; 1 Joule = 1kilogram*meter2 / second2. Mass is measured in units of kilograms and Vf is measured in tesla and particularly units of meter/second. Thus according to dimensional analysis, E= MVf is dimensionally true or sound or in particular; E= W.Q2 is dimensionally sound due to its equivalence to E=MVf when converted to units of E=MVf. Thanks.

Dear klaynos; I can now appreciate the concerns of dimensional analysis and particularly special thanks go to you klaynos. Your concerns about the conventionality of dimensional analysis have made me discover some mistakes that I made in the definition of the Q2equations (the quantum frames of conserving work equation), and at the same time realizing the relevance of univaso theory equations to dimensional analysis. Mistake and correction: From the equations of the quantum frames of conserving work Q2, that is; [latex] \frac{\frac{s}{1}}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex] Or [latex] \frac{s}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex] or any other Q2 equation, s is not energy but s = w = work 2- And M=EX2, where M is mass, E is energy and X2 is the conservation square. E is not energy in its absolute form, but E= h (plank constant). Thus M=hx2 or M=h/r .c -as we all know that theconstant speed of light c2 is the physical limit of energy conservation due to the visible spectrum, so it turns out that r = radius of the two opposite particle that constitute the same quantum unit (for example electron and positron or specifically matter and anti matter) and c is the speed of light. Univaso theory and dimensional analysis: Step 1, You remember very well that; we said that E= W.Q2,where E is energy, W is work and Q2 is the quantum frames of work conservation. And as W.Q2 = g.v2,this implies that E= g.v2; where g is gravitation and v2is the velocity square. Step 2, We all know that gravitation (g)= m.a where m is mass and a is acceleration. This implies that E =m*a* v2.and because a* v2 are physical derivatives of displacement due to material change, this implies that a* v2= displacement and thus E=M.d;where d is displacement. Step 3, We also know that Energy is measured in units of Joules. And that; 1 Joule = 1kilogram*meter2 / second2. Mass is measured in units of kilograms and displacement is measured in units of meter/second. Thus according to dimensional analysis, E=M.d is dimensionally true or sound or in particular; E= W.Q2 is dimensionally sound due to its equivalence to E=M.d when converted to units of E=Md.

does this mean that every dimensionally correct equation must be dimensionally sound. and not all dimensionally sound equations are dimensionally correct. and thus dimensional analysis is concerned with the soundness of the equation?

The foundation of dimensional analysis comes from the need to compare two seemingly different phenomena that describe the same phenomena in relative terms and see whether they are equivalently the same in absolute terms. In mathematics, physics or any other scientific discipline, analyzing a formula with absolutely same variables at both sides of its equation makes no meaning; reason being that the formula is dimensionless and thus does not qualify to be a true equation. For example; any formula in the form of 9=9 or E=E (suppose that E represents energy) is dimensionless because variables that describe the same phenomena have been described in their absolute term from both sides of the equation. A true equation is subject to dimensional analysis and that is why it is called an equation and because of dimensional analysis; any meaningful formulation of the equation must be dimensional. A dimensional formulation is where variables from one or both sides of the equation that describe the same phenomena are dimensional, for example; E=MC2 is a formula that relates energy in both its absolute and relative terms. That is to say, E is a variable that describes energy in its absolute terms and its formulation is dimensionless, while MC2 are variables that describe energy in relative terms from the reference frame of mass and the speed of light and their formulation is dimensional. Thus E=MC2 is a true equation in its formulation sense and we can only check whether it is correct by converting MC2 to E variable(which is the basic variable of energy described in absolute terms). And it can only be correct if E=E, remember that E=E is just the proof of the correctness of the equation but not its true equation sense. Remember that we have been using the E=MC2 example which is a physical phenomena based equation. But its scenario applies equally to the arithmetical quantity based equations, for example; 6+3=9 or 5+4=6+3. In fact, 6+3=9 or 5+4=6+3 they are just different dimensional framework of describing the same phenomena and our task in dimensional analysis is to convert these relative variables into the basic variable of the formula that describe the phenomena in absolute terms and see whether both sides of the equation equal. And here, 5+4 or 6+3 will be converted into 9 and see whether 6+3=9 or 5+4=6+3. A dimensional equation differs from a dimensionless equation in that; the former describes a given absolute phenomena in terms of its relative variables that constitute its basic dimensional framework, while the later is just an absolute variable that describes the phenomena. But they do not differ because one can not represent physical units or the other can not describe arithmetical quantity. The above description is my personal point of view as far as dimensional analysis is concerned. It differs from that of my tutor and I have found problems with him as far as my approach is concerned. If am right; please make a comment or a supplement. And if am wrong please correct me with some mathematically explained and consistent examples.