I am a black dragon god and draconians are my minions.

I have questions for you for those who believe in the spiritual realms.

How old is a spirit? Are they infinite? Do they start from something or does it start with energy first?

only one thing is infinite - mans stupidity.

Eljay said:




Prime source just is. It is unknowable and indescribable. I imagine its only attribute is the will to be. The will to exist. It is the observer and the observed. It is the creator and the created. It is all things.

The universal mind creates order out of chaos and manifests worlds upon worlds which serve as environments for conscious beings.

You said: "I just don't see the "God" of pantheism being any more capable of doing anything than man himself. That is bringing God down to the level of man."

It is my view that Christianity is the belief system that has brought god down to the level of man. They claim god walked with Adam in the garden of Eden. They claim that Jesus is god and no body else. They give their god human attributes of jealousy, anger, vengeance, and have him inciting war on earth over a plot of land. In the face of the true prime source that is absurd.

JB

That is the amount of energy in a certain amount of mass. It does not mean they are the same thing. Length*Width= Area but area and length are not the same thing.

so I guess it doesn't apply to me since I am a black dragon.

i see from your last 2 post your not thinking outside the box. Your attaching descriptions to meanings that can only hold meaning in this dimensional universe we know with our senses. Beyond that is unknown which is where the source or creative force is. it is unknowable in anyway. it is simply as i state a creative force that has always existed and always will, just like you believe your god to be. only this force spoken of has no attributes to attach to it - no emotions, no human like qualities, just a pure unadulterated creative force. to give it attributes beyond this would belittle what it is, not exalt its existence. It didn't come into being it has been there forever and always will be - just as you try to describe your god. but without all the makeup and glitz you've added to him to make him sound like just a larger version of man himself. Oh and the force is not stupid or something that changes its mind or cries or gets angry or has any emotions at all like yours either.big difference there.

However - the God of Pantheism - who is in everyone and is everyone is immune to this? Please explain.

Chaster said:

That is the amount of energy in a certain amount of mass. It does not mean they are the same thing. Length*Width= Area but area and length are not the same thing.

There can be no false gods and no true gods when all is god.

JB

cant answer for JB, but what i believe is not pantheistic, simply a creative force, no more no less. it's beyond anything you could attach human qualities to or any other qualities to, to do so would make it less than what it is. it's outside the realm of "knowing" as you think of knowing as your god is known to you.It has no needs or desires or anything else that you may deem necessary for a god to have. it's ability is only to bring forth substance from which all else eventually comes into form such as we can perceive readily and other we cannot perceive because of our limitations of our fleshly circumstances. This substance that it brings forth i believe is what JB may be referring to but like i said, i cant speak for her, she may think diff.

Tell that to the people in India that worship a God for every single thing there is!

Thats just a little misconception on the part of us westerners. The Hindu people do not believe that the stories of their many gods are literal. Its metaphorical to them. Karma is the supreme power of the Hindu faith.

You are right about that, Chaster. But energy and mass are basically the same thing ~only in a different state.

2 = 2 (Equals means the same thing.)

Energy = Mass times the speed of light squared. (E=mc2)

Mass = energy (The formula just tells you how much energy it takes to create mass.)

How we create things from thoughts:


Thoughts are things, (waves) ~~things are energy.
(Particles are standing waves.)

What is energy? ~~Energy is thought information or waves.
What is matter? ~~Matter is a particle, a standing wave.

Thoughts are energy, and energy converts to matter (E=mc2)

That is how a thinking center creates something from what appears to be nothing (a thought) but a thought is really something because it is a wave.

(Thoughts are energy ~waves)


JB

Thats just a little misconception on the part of us westerners. The Hindu people do not believe that the stories of their many gods are literal. Its metaphorical to them. Karma is the supreme power of the Hindu faith.

Funny one of my sisters corresponded with a man from India and he said that they worship everything. There's a God for every thing....Karma was BIG too.

A particle is not a wave. If it were there would not be the particle wave duality of light because it would be the same thing.

A thought is not energy. Energy is basically the ability to do work and thoughts can't do work.

Matter is anything with mass. Energy does not have mass so it is not matter.

E=mc^2 is an equation, and just like all equations it shows a relationship between two or more things. That does not mean you can actually convert one thing into another. All this equation is saying is that an objects total energy (kinetic + potential) is equal to its mass times the speed of light. It does not mean that you can convert one to another.

Just because V=IR or voltage= current * resistance, does not mean that I can magically change voltage into current. It merely shows the relationship between them.

Chazster:
A particle is not a wave. If it were there would not be the particle wave duality of light because it would be the same thing.

Chazster:

A thought is not energy. Energy is basically the ability to do work and thoughts can't do work.

Chazster:

Matter is anything with mass. Energy does not have mass so it is not matter.

E=mc^2 is an equation, and just like all equations it shows a relationship between two or more things. That does not mean you can actually convert one thing into another.

All this equation is saying is that an objects total energy (kinetic + potential) is equal to its mass times the speed of light. It does not mean that you can convert one to another.

Internet:

Conversion of Energy into Mass
http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/p200/emc2/node9.html

In a NUCLEAR REACTOR, a spontaneous nuclear process results in a net decrease in the net mass of all the particles involved. The "missing mass'' appears as the kinetic energy of the reaction products, which is dissipated by what amounts to friction and generates heat that boils water; the steam is used to spin turbines that run generators that send electrical power down the wires.

This leads to an obvious question: can we do the opposite? Can we take electrical power out of the wires, use it to raise the kinetic energy of some particles to enormous values, smack the particles together and generate some extra mass? Yes! This is what a PARTICLE ACCELERATOR like TRIUMF24.12 does. Every such accelerator is a sort of "reactor in reverse,'' taking electrical power out of the grid and turning it into mass.

Such things happen naturally, too. Gamma rays of sufficient energy often convert into electron-positron pairs when they have a glancing collision with a heavy nucleus. This is pictured in Figs. 24.3 and 24.4.

Just because V=IR or voltage= current * resistance, does not mean that I can magically change voltage into current. It merely shows the relationship between them.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-Scientific-Theory-Reality.htm

The rules of science (simplicity) and metaphysics (dynamic unity of reality) force us to conclude that matter is formed from spherical standing wave motions of Space (rather than Newton's particles, or Einstein's continuous fields).

This is why matter can interact with other matter in the Space around it, because all matter (in the observable universe) is interconnected in Space by its spherical in and out waves.

The Wave Center causes the discrete 'particle' effect of matter that we see and interact with.

The spherical in and out waves cause the field effects, but in a slightly different way than Einstein imagined because they are discrete standing wave effects, rather than his continuous field effects. i.e. Einstein's continuous field theory of mater does not explain discrete properties of light and matter as determined by quantum theory - whereas standing wave interactions (resonant coupling) only occur at discrete wavelengths / frequencies thus explaining the discrete properties of light quanta 'photons'.

The above arguments all seem true to me, none of it is my opinion, they simply state common scientific knowledge combined with our common experience of existing in Space.

And I should add that Erwin Schrodinger actually proposed a wave structure of matter 80 years ago (unfortunately his wave equations were used by Max Born as probability waves to find the location of the particle, rather than treating them as real waves in Space). As Schrodinger explains;

Erwin Schrodinger on quantum physics

What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. (Erwin Schrödinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Physics.)

So now we must see if this Spherical Wave Structure of Matter works - does it correctly deduce the fundamentals of modern physics?

Well thanks to the work of retired Professor of Maths Physics, Dr Milo Wolff, we can show with mathematical / logical precision that it works perfectly.

It is well known that there is a particle-wave duality for light and matter. Given this most simple science theory is founded on One substance, Space, we must consider the Properties of Space, thus we cannot add 'parts / particles' to Space. So we are left only with waves.

Thus there is only one solution - Space must exist with the Properties of a Wave Medium, and matter is formed from wave motions of Space.

So Aristotle and Leibniz were largely correct, they just did not realize that matter's activity / motion really came from the wave motion of Space (a vibrating Space / substance is a simple way to imagine it).

Matter's Particle Effect is Caused by the Wave Center of the Spherical Standing Wave

The positron (anti-matter) is simply the opposite phase standing wave which sensibly explains matter / anti-matter annihilation due to destructive wave interference. (The proton and neutron are more complex wave structures which still need further study)

It is easy to see how the particle effect of matter is formed at the Wave Center.

You can also see why pythagoras' theorem is not just a mathematical (axiomatic) truth, but fundamental to physical reality. If you draw two lines at right angles to one another, radiating from the wave center, one 3 wavelengths, the other 4 wavelengths, then complete the rectangle, magically! you find the hypotenuse is exactly 5 wavelengths long.

This is because this wave diagram truly represents how matter interacts / forms it spatial dimensions.

Further, three dimensional space and spherical space are equivalent, as it takes three variables to describe a sphere.

In fact the cause of three dimensional space is simply that matter interacts spherically (see Einstein quote below).
The fourth dimension of 'time' is really just the motion of the wave (motion causes time).

It is important to realize that this conception of matter founded on waves in Space has a different metaphysical foundation. Currently in physics we have a Metaphysics of Space and Time to which we add discrete 'particles' and thus also continuous 'fields' to connect them (thus we have four different things - space, time, matter particles and fields).

The Wave Structure of Matter is founded on one thing, Space, existing as a wave medium. i.e. A Metaphysics of Space and (wave) Motion - where matter is formed from the spherical standing wave motions of Space. This unites Space, Time, Motion and Matter. Thus Aristotle was also correct when he wrote;

Movement, then, is also continuous in the way in which time is - indeed time is either identical to movement or is some affection of it. ... there being two causes of which we have defined in the Physics, that of matter and that from which the motion comes. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)

This is also consistent with the fact that atomic clocks use the natural resonance frequency of the cesium atom (9,192,631,770 Hz) to measure time.




Try doing any work without them...

I disagree. Thoughts are things because they are waves.

At the quantum level everything breaks down to energy and information. In this reality, everything is made up of vibration and frequency. Waves.



Oh really? Some people would disagree. Maybe you better break the news to the government because they have spent BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on giant particle accelerators for experimenting on converting energy to matter. Perhaps you should tell them and save them a lot of time and money.



JB

Your whole argument is that, "some people think". Just because people think it doesn't mean its considered true in the scientific community.

I still stand that a thought is not energy. A brain surgeon can cut your head open and poke at your brain and make your body respond. If you know the definition of work, which basically states that you apply a force to an object and it moves in the same direction as the force, then you know a thought isn't doing work and thus has no energy.

Not to say that both anitmatter, and the conversion of energy into matter are not both viable theories, but I would not consider them to have enough support in the scientific community to call them truth.