is energy relative, absolute or both?

[univeral theory]

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; E_R/+ .-(√E_R) = E_R. Where; E_R is
the reaction of energy.

In absolute frame, energy remains the same. And this is calculated by E_R/+ .-(√E_R)=E_R. Where; E_R/+.-(√E_R) 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, E_R/+ .-(√E_R)=Q.t, where ‘Q’ is consciousness and ‘t’ is time. And thus; E_R/S = E_R/+ .-(√E_R)
= Q.t= E_R. 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 T_b = KE.K²; where; T_b 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=MC^2. 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=MV^2. 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?

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Moved to speculations, because it obviously is not mainstream.

 

Now the question becomes: how this is different from the Universal Theory thread that was closed? The gibberish looks awfully familiar.

 

[univeral theory]

!

Moderator Note

 

Moved to speculations, because it obviously is not mainstream.

 

Now the question becomes: how this is different from....

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

[swansont]

Anything that depends on speed, such as kinetic energy, is frame dependent. Total energy and kinetic energy are relative.

[univeral theory]

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

Edited May 9, 2013 by univeral theory

[ajb]

perhaps it is just a little too much of writing! but the central concern is that, is energy relative,absolute or both?

All that rubbish for a direct question?

 

As swansont has said, the energy of an object depends on the frame of reference used to measure the energy. This should be no real suprise, think about KE, just as swansont says.

 

This should not be confused with the principle of conservation of energy.

[swansont]

 

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

 

 

Any inertial observer can claim to be at rest. Thus, any measurement that depends on speed will be relative to the observer.

[univeral theory]

Anything that depends on speed, such as kinetic energy, is frame dependent. Total energy and kinetic energy are relative.

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

[swansont]

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

 

For a purely kinematic system, it's the combination of the rest mass energy and kinetic energy. E^2 = p^2c^2 +m^2c^4

[univeral theory]

For a purely kinematic system, it's the combination of the rest mass energy and kinetic energy. E^2 = p^2c^2 +m^2c^4

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

As swansont has said, the energy of an object depends on the frame of reference used to measure the energy. ........

 

This should not be confused with the principle of conservation of energy.

 

yes; then what is the reference frame of energy conserved in an isolated system?

[ajb]

yes; then what is the reference frame of energy conserved in an isolated system?

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.

[univeral theory]

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.

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"?

[ajb]

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"?

I don't quite follow what you are trying to say.

 

There are in fact two issues here. One is that you need a reference frame to measure anything in. The second is that we only measure energies relative to the zero point energy, which we usually take to be zero.

[univeral theory]

I don't quite follow what you are trying to say.

 

There are in fact two issues here. One is that you need a reference frame to measure anything in. The second is that we only measure energies relative to the zero point energy, which we usually take to be zero.

 

 

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.

[swansont]

ajb is not making any "mambo jambo rambling". The physics he has presented is correct. It is your posts that are rambling, and which require clarification to be understood.

 

The answer is yes, energy is relative to your reference frame. Energy is conserved, but it is not invariant, which means the energy measured within your frame stays the same, but the amount depends on from which frame you measure it.

[ajb]

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.

Okay, so we all agree that energy is frame dependent. Good.

Only that at post #5 I inquire in the kind of frames up on which energy depends.

The energy will depend on the frames employed. In special relativity we have a natural class of frames, the inertial ones, but no single inertial frame is prefered. Even in special relativity one does not have to pick inertial frames.

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.

Okay, so we can be more specific here to avoid extra complications. In special relativity energy is conserved in the sence that in a given inertial frame the energy of an isolated syetem does not change. We can use this in analysing relativistic scattering for example. This does not imply that all inertial observers will agree on the value of the energy of an isolated system, only that it is conserved.

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.

Read my response above. That may help.

 

Almost by definition, local variables usually are frame dependent, but we know how to change frames. But anyway, it is the conservation of energy we were discussing and not the question of how energy itself actually transforms under changes of coordinates.

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.

So, by self frame you mean rest frame. That is fine, in special relativity that is no problem at all and in general relativity we can always do this locally, for small enough objects. It maybe the case that this is a rather natural frame for certian measurements, but it is not really a prefered frame.

 

One must not confuse the issue of frames/coordinates that are adapted to very specific situations as defining prefered frames within the theory. Typically, if the system has lots of extra symmetry them there maybe a natural frame or classes of frames to use. But these are singled out by the specific system you are studing and do not point to some deep fact of nature.

 

For example, typically if one wants to describe the motion of the planets in Newtonian gravity, lets say, it makes sence to pick a coordinate system in which the Sun is at the centre. The symmetry of the systems points out that this is a natural frame to use. However, one could use any other planet in the solar system and declare that to lie at the origin of your coordinate system. The resulting description may well be much more difficult to describe but it is in no way "more or less correct" than putting the Sun at the origin.

 

More than this, the symmetry of the solar system may point to a natural frame for that system, but it does not state that the frame with the Sun at the origin is a prefered frame for all gravitational physics.

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.

I don't fully follow what you are saying. However, it reminds me of the centre of momentum frame in relativistic mechanics. Again, there may be some classes of frames that are natural to the system being studied, but they do not point to a deeper fact of nature.

[univeral theory]

ajb is not making any "mambo jambo rambling".

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.

Edited May 15, 2013 by univeral theory

[swansont]

You are always at rest with respect to yourself. You are always in your own reference frame.

[ajb]

but now adress please; can something be relative to its self? if yes, please explain with some relevant examples.

 

In various contexts you can have things relative to themselves, but this is rather uninteresting. Swansont's example is primal; what is your velocity measured relative to yourself?

 

Other examples would follow in a similar way.

 

[univeral theory]

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