The dinitrogen molecule has a triple valence bond among its pair of
nitrogen atoms. This bond is energy. It binds the two nitrogen atoms
together using three bonds storing a great deal of energy in this
energetic relationship. So much so, that it takes a lot of voltage -
around 70,000 volts of a positive polarity - to split this triple bond
apart to harness this tremendous energy. This was the technique used by:
Herman Anderson, Stanley Meyer, and the Nazi's air-fuel bomb used on
the Russian front during WWII.
This is a molecular energetic arrangement among, and between, two
nitrogen atoms. This is an arrangement in time. Without time, this
arrangement has no meaning.
Energy is tied to time. Electrical energy, as wattage, is measured in
terms of time (Joules per second). Energy is bound to time. Without
time, energy has no meaning, for energy is a molecular relationship
among the individual atoms which comprise this relationship.
Electricity is energy. Electricity flows down a wire. This wire is
composed of copper atoms linked together via their valence shell
electrons. So even here, energy is molecular. Energy is not atomic.
Force is atomic, because forces are the ingredients which make up
energy. Force is not tied to time when it is considered by itself. Not
until forces are tied to time do they become energized at the molecular
level of the interactions among atoms. It is these molecular
interactions among atoms which constitutes an energetic interplay.
So, I'm not saying anything new. We already know this to be true, that:
energy is not atomic, hence, energy cannot be conserved. Energy is
molecular. Force is atomic.
Due to these distinctions, we have been confusing ourselves and one
another over a fictitious Conservation of Energy Law which was never
valid to begin with.
And we have never questioned whether or not force must be conserved
since we've never bothered to investigate from where does force arise?
If it must be restricted to conversion from another force, then a new
Conservation of Force would be installed as a new Law to replace the
previously misconstrued Conservation of Energy mandate.
But such is not the case, because this would be an inherent contradiction!
Force cannot convert into another force since time does not get involved
with force. Conversion, and the laws of thermodynamics, only pertains
to energy - not force - since conversion necessitates time for change
(conversion) to occur. Since there is no time associated with a force,
then there cannot be any conservation of force.
So, where does force come from?
If force is incontrovertible, then force must be eternal as well as being non-conservable.
This makes force effortlessly and endlessly perpetual if we are to
insist on judging force in terms of time. But again, this is a mistake.
If we must put a temporal stamp upon force, then let it be regarded
(defined) in terms of what it is not. It is not now, it is not before
now, nor can it be after now.
Like force, time may be regarded all by itself apart from any
association with force. This makes time eternally now without a past,
nor a future. This puts to rest any theory of a Big Bang for this could
only arise as a fictional misunderstanding if held to be true by those
who insist on believing in a Big Bang that is required to initiate time.
Time doesn't need any help. It always is and forever will be.
It is force which needs the help of time to manifest the Creation we
have come to almost take for granted. Almost....if we continue to insist
on fabricating half-truths and confusion regarding Creation's ultimate
nature along with its essential nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment