3-parted kind of Energy

As we used to think about our world it is always stable.

All theories about multiple universe or some non-solid stuffs involving that our world in such non-solid imagination of life is sometimes too crazy even for some scientist.

But as I wrote in previous lectures all nowadays science bases on observation and experiments. Maybe "experiment" word isn't complete for that I mean now. It would better to say that our science, in 2018, in beginning on XXI century, bases on observation and exams. Still on observation and exams since we, as humans, discovered a wheel.


Examined behavior if is repeatable can be used and ready for being useful.

All around we can see some of dual nature of energy. There in some microscope scale is more difficult to observe, anyway, we do that by observation of material we can exam and observe. Impact is important as well. It is most useful tool in science at all.

Maybe it wont be very popular between scientist, but it is the fact, that most of that we have as obvious in physic is like a ghosts. Not seen. Not touched. Any of our sense cant accept that kind of energy. We can't see all of quantum physic. Our senses aren't compatible. Then, when we are saying, that something is just working, that must be in science more than telling that, not only believing in such testament making that is possible.

However, so far science can't explain such things as levitation, remote viewing, teleportations of matter.

Or maybe teleportation isn't a mystery already, because few years ago, in Japan and after that in China, teams of scientist made something like teleportation basics particles.

Then, isn't our word so solid? Or aren't our worlds so solid? What kind of impact can bring it into our lives?

It is definitely blow minded.

What can happen with our world, if we, as humans discover the biggest secret of our world. And we get desire to use it...

What if... is as terrify as magnetic to get into new possiblities of totaly new perspective on our world and us as humans.

Ah, almost I forgot what about I wanted make that lecture. Isn't it funny that all begans from big bang, and nobody can exam it?

If it is real, and can be proved, how to prove it for sure? Why still we have many only theories, instead of one knowledge about that. But still it is real science now.

Maybe because it leads to biggest mystery of that world. It lead us to knowing ourselves. Our energy nature. And basic law of that whole world. It is - dualization,
 or how we can say 3-parted of every kind of energy on Earth and around.

Greetings,
Magdalena Korzeniewska.

Why E = mc2 isn't good enaugh

Most popular equation in physic E = mc2, is like a monument of science nowadays.

If anyone on this Earth dare to deny that already grounded in every human mind equation, and theory behind it, would be or a very crazy or a really great mind.

So, it is worth to try. ;)

Taken for granted theory already evaluate anyway. It is not much in common with many equation from other fields of physic, where "E" as energy, "m" as mass and "c" as the speed of light is taken. How much any other equation has in common of speed of light and energy of representation by E in famous E = mc2.

Almost nothing. It is just incredibly taken as genius, but it is not much more we can get from that. I know, it is not standard thinking. Simply, If we want to say, how much of energy is in some X... and that is very interesting part of making any explanation. Just because we used to thing in space - time categories, it is a little bit more difficult imagine something without space, shape, without any environment. If we want to point some thing, it must be in some environment. Even it is something without solid shape as wind, taste, color, etc.

Then for simple our example, lets take a green box on grace. What energy that box is having now? Can you define it by speed of light? No - it would be nonsense, because it is nothing in common with speed of light now. Then equation E = mc2 isn't good here. Even we don't know that mass of this example box for put in that equation. Then, what energy has it?

We must take some other parameters to have specific equation to calculate energy it owns. Lets outline all of them. No, you can say, it's waste of time now. Yes, I agree, there in nowadays science we have so many, really many parameterizes of some one box, and that is not everything for define its energy E yet. That can be many of kinds of energy it has. We don't know what equation we can use, just because we don't know, what we want to do, or for what movement will be exposed that example box.

So, that equation E = mc2 isn't useful actually.

Why then scientists had rubby faces with talking about that. I think, they didn't have any idea how to link such many of already existed theories with energy of light. It is some misstatement in that way of thinking.

That equation is already connected with space, and made mass as a indicator of that specific energy. Then it isn't so universal. There is possible to have any really universal equation for all energies, kinetic, potential and many others ready to use in all our known world? I think it is.


In purpose I used term of energy with mass in one sentence. Just because mass is something we used to use for things, to measure HOW heavy they are. On earth. In some SPACE - TIME environment.

Then, one thing as a conclusion. If we want to take some energy, and make from that any use, equation E = mc2 isn't helpful. It is opposite, not saying how much of energy has anything we want to exam, but it says what energy it would have in some not real environment. It is not wrong, but not efficient actually.

In any part of making any calculation in physics we must take some other parameterizes and use many of other calculations to make some right at the end.

Anyway, if we want to just say about energy in such example box, it is sort of useless. If we make some calculation in any field of nowadays science there are many of variables we must know. Before we calculate anything. To built buildings, bridges, engines for many transports like cars, planes, etc.

Being more specific, all around is energy.

Literally.

Then, why we can't use some universal rules for all energies we already defined as humans.

It seems be very controversial, but it isn't as much. In some few years, I hope, I finish my theory of 3-sides of energy, or 3 - parts of energy. Making all calculations more efficient and more understandable.

In some time I'm going to tame our space-time singularity as well as Einstein made it with energy of light.

Greetings.
Magdalena Korzeniewska,
2018, Lega, Poland.