New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory

[Cloxxki]

The pathways at the airport seem to be a relevant comparison here?

You push a ball with 1 unit of force, witch makes it attain v. It smoothly transitions onto the pathway, which happens to move at v itself. we'll have to disregard spin here, because the ball would roll forward on the pathway when braking down the spin.
Anyway, we hop on the pathway where the ball is laying still. We again push it with 1 unit of force, and sure enough, we get 2*v as an actual speed. That is, if we did not slow down the pathway. But, we did! Pathway delivered the difference between dV and dV².
If we step off the pathway and attempt to make the same push from the side rjust as the ball passes us, CAN we make it reach 2*V? we could use a lever to double our pushing speed, but that also reduces torque. The push is "weaker".

It all comes doen to this. Raise a weight to twice the height, and the speed it will fall to the ground to, will be MUCH less than twice the original. Distance*time is the bugger everytime.

[exnihiloest]

energy is frame dependant

That's sheer nonsense.

Omnibus, you should learn physics instead of spreading lies and ignorance.

"The kinetic energy of a single object is completely frame-dependent"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

[Omnibus]

Omnibus, you should learn physics instead of spreading lies and ignorance.

"The kinetic energy of a single object is completely frame-dependent"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

You should stop quoting Wikipedia when the discussion is about serious things. Your dishonesty has no limits and you're trying to find support in the most unlikely source for true science.

[Cloxxki]

You should stop quoting Wikipedia when the discussion is about serious things. Your dishonesty has no  and you're trying to find support in the most unlikely source for true science.

Wikipedia is a better source than repeating one self in 100% surely establishing that OU was reached, each new hint of an idea.

[exnihiloest]

You should stop quoting Wikipedia when the discussion is about serious things. Your dishonesty has no limits and you're trying to find support in the most unlikely source for true science.

What a joke! It is your own dishonesty that you project.
Wikipedia can't educate ignorant people who want to remain in their ignorance. It is just a start point for intelligent people able to go beyond.

Kinetic energy being 1/2*m*v² and v being frame dependant, it is obvious that kinetic energy is frame dependant.
But according to intuitive omnibus knowledge, Wikipedia is wrong and energy is independant of the frame of reference, therefore even when v=0, there is a kinetic energy!...   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy