Is God an energy being ?

[ratiocinator]

Try my quantum scales , an exact and correct explanation of gravitational mass and force .

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

If you say so but I know my model is correct .

The strong nuclear force of the proton and the strong nuclear force of the electron converge to create a third weaker force , namely gravity .
F1+F2=F3
I particular prefer the term N-force because we all know that −1 e + (+1e) = 0 net charge or a neutral charge N

 

[Sheldon]

Before God there was no energy and to create energy you need energy so that must mean that God is made of energy and can create energy .

Or you've created a circular fallacy, with a begging the question fallacy in it, it's a tough one, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's it.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Or you've created a circular fallacy, with a begging the question fallacy in it, it's a tough one, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's it.

Seems a logical answer as opposed illogical answers and the fact that information can be sent via electromagnetic radiation suggests information can exist even without the observer .

 

[ratiocinator]

If you say so but I know my model is correct .

If you haven't tested it (and you've admitted that you can't) then you can't even be sure that it's even a good approximation. At least, that would be the case if any of it actually meant anything in the first place, which it doesn't. You're posting sciency word salad, meaningless diagrams, and formulas that are either contradictions or pointless identities.

What's more, claiming certainty about any scientific model (even a very well tested one) would be to misunderstand the nature of science.

The strong nuclear force of the proton and the strong nuclear force of the electron converge to create a third weaker force , namely gravity .

Nonsense.

F1+F2=F3

Meaningless.

−1 e + (+1e) = 0

Wow! So 1 - 1 = 0, are you sure?

 

[Sheldon]

Before God there was no energy and to create energy you need energy so that must mean that God is made of energy and can create energy .

Or you've created a circular fallacy, with a begging the question fallacy in it, it's a tough one, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's it.

Seems a logical answer as opposed illogical answers and the fact that information can be sent via electromagnetic radiation suggests information can exist even without the observer .

I have no idea what you're trying to say there, and it doesn't address your circular reasoning fallacy with a begging the question fallacy in it.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

If you haven't tested it (and you've admitted that you can't) then you can't even be sure that it's even a good approximation. At least, that would be the case if any of it actually meant anything in the first place, which it doesn't. You're posting sciency word salad, meaningless diagrams, and formulas that are either contradictions or pointless identities.

What's more, claiming certainty about any scientific model (even a very well tested one) would be to misunderstand the nature of science.


Nonsense.


Meaningless.


Wow! So 1 - 1 = 0, are you sure?

I've tested my model every time I drop something onto the floor , you are being silly now and know very well that model is accurate .

F1+F2=F3 is correct so why are you denying that ?

All atomic mass has a N-force relative to other mass .

 

[Sheldon]

ratiocinator said: ↑
Yes, you can have energy without matter,

No, all matter is a form of energy .

Incorrect you can have energy without matter. Light is a form of energy, not matter. Matter is made up of atoms, light is actually electromagnetic radiation.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Incorrect you can have energy without matter. Light is a form of energy, not matter. Matter is made up of atoms, light is actually electromagnetic radiation.

You're just going to ignore the fact that quantum fields is electromagnetic radiation and is a form of energy ?

Quantum fields are matter and the Earths field stopping the solar winds demonstates this .

You can have kE that exists independent of matter energy but requires matter to be produced .

 

[ratiocinator]

I've tested my model every time I drop something onto the floor...

We have a very good and very, very well tested theory about that. Since none of your pointless equations or word salad can give a numerical answer to anything in the practical world, like, for example, even predict how long it would take for something to fall from a given height, and general relativity has made multiple, precise predictions, all of which have been proved correct, I don't think there's much of a contest.

...you are being silly now and know very well that model is accurate .

F1+F2=F3 is correct so why are you denying that ?

It's just meaningless. One undefined quantity plus another equals a third. So what?

All atomic mass has a N-force relative to other mass .

More word salad.

 

[ratiocinator]

Light is a form of energy, not matter.

Actually, it isn't. Light has energy. Energy isn't 'stuff'. You can't have energy by itself. But you're right that energy can be a property of other things than matter (and actually matter itself is a rather vague term). I linked this earlier in the thread but you might find it interesting: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

We have a very good and very, very well tested theory about that. Since none of your pointless equations or word salad can give a numerical answer to anything in the practical world, like, for example, even predict how long it would take for something to fall from a given height, and general relativity has made multiple, precise predictions, all of which have been proved correct, I don't think there's much of a contest.

I can measure a MRI scanner but that doesn't mean I know the mechanics of how it works . The point being how gravity works was not answered until I produced the answer about 2 forces converging to make a third weaker force .
F=ma2 is still the measure so why can't you juist enjoy the information I am providing instead of insisting the maths that already measures the process ?

In gravity the maths came before the mechanics which is a rarity but fine .

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Momentum is also a conserved quantity in physics. For some reason nobody ever suggests God is like momentum.

Actually, only one person, Hindu actually, that mentioned god is energy as a motion. Not sure how she came to that conclusion given I don't see her here often anymore. I likened "God" be that but the physics throws it off.

 

[ratiocinator]

The point being how gravity works was not answered until I produced the answer about 2 forces converging to make a third weaker force .

False. General relativity is a theory of how gravity works. You're word salad, and meaningless diagrams and equations, are not.

F=ma2...

What do you think that means?

...is still the measure so why can't you juist enjoy the information I am providing instead of insisting the maths that already measures the process ?

Information? What information?

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

False. General relativity is a theory of how gravity works. You're word salad, and meaningless diagrams and equations, are not.


What do you think that means?


Information? What information?

General relativity desribes how space-time energy can curve , it doesn't describe what mass is and how mass can curve space-time energy .

Space-time energy is also matter and consists of F1+F2=F3

Einstein did not explain why Newtons apple fell to the ground , what is mass ?

You will reply mass is in kg a measure

I will reply what force gives it that measure

You will say Newtons of force

I will explain that Newtons mass force is F1+F2=F3 advancing Newton and explaining it as a N-force .

I will also advance Einstein and describe that space-time energy also has a N-force .

 

[metis]

I've been thinking then I thought that I am energy , the earth is energy , the atmosphere is energy , between heavenly bodies there is energy .

Before God there was no energy and to create energy you need energy so that must mean that God is made of energy and can create energy .

Einstein sorta drifted in that direction with God being the energy of creation.

 

[exchemist]

I don't think that we know enough about matter and energy and anti matter and....... to know.
We might know enough to do stuff around here, but at the centre of our galaxy (for instance) we haven't got a clue about what goes on inside a super massive black hole like Sagittarius A*.

Having said that I think that everything, force and anything else is a part of 'God'.

Energy is a concept we invented for book-keeping purposes, like linear and angular momentum.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Einstein sorta drifted in that direction with God being the energy of creation.

I'm not surprised to be honest because minds like Einstein look for objective answers and possibilities .

 

[exchemist]

Having read your posts, and wanting any information from elsewhere to back up your points I googled, 'can energy exist alone'. This was the very first response that I saw:-

About 523,000,000 results (0.55 seconds)
Search Results
Radio waves, light, and other forms of radiation all have energy, but do not need matter. So yes, you absolutely can have energy without matter, in empty space

I can grasp the idea that all radio, light and other radiated energies come from 'things', but the separation of matter and energy and antimatter and dark energy is suggested......

For myself I don't have any problem with the threads' title because I perceive that every thing, force and anything else is all part of the 'whole'... and some people think of the whole as 'God'. So whatever is and any nothingness in between, that's the closest that I personally can get to perceiving 'God'. But this is all so unimaginably vast (our universe may be a tiny part of everything) that any God could not possibly be aware of, or involved with a recent species of beings on a fleck of dust in a minor solar system.....the idea that God is interested in us seems absurd to me.

Be a bit careful here. The energy in light is a property of electromagnetic radiation. Energy can be a property of radiation as well as of matter. Energy cannot exist alone. It is always a property of a physical system of some kind.

But physical systems do not have to consist of matter. Radiation is also a physical system.

 

[ratiocinator]

General relativity desribes how space-time energy can curve...

No, it doesn't. It describes how space-time itself can curve - by which it means the actual geometry (as defined by the metric) can change. So it's actually the case that things like the radio of the circumference to the diameter of circles can change, but it extends the idea to the geometry of space-time. If you do 2-d geometry on the surface of a sphere then you'll find that things like the aforementioned ratio change compared to doing it on a flat piece of paper, that's why it's called 'curvature'.

...it doesn't describe what mass is and how mass can curve space-time energy .

At end of the day, in any theory, there are things that are fundamental. In terms of relativity theory, it describes the exact relationship between curvature and mass (actually the stress–energy–momentum tensor). Which is a great deal better than your nonsense equations and pointless word salad.

Space-time energy is also matter and consists of F1+F2=F3

This is still meaningless.

I will explain that Newtons mass force is F1+F2=F3 advancing Newton and explaining it as a N-force .

I will also advance Einstein and describe that space-time energy also has a N-force .

Writing utterly meaningless equations and jumbling science words randomly together to make meaningless nonsense, does not advance anything. Sorry.