@fredsbend I thought that two.

Let's apply that same logic to D=TR. This equation expresses the fact that time and distance are the same physical entity and can be changed into each other.

So lets consider the element of rate. This is how fast the Lord is speaking.

Or for the use of the equation some percentage of it.

Now the Rate determined through Einstein is the speed of light squared.

Let us consider "Mechanical work" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29)

For example, when a ball is held above the ground and then dropped, the work done on the ball as it falls is equal to the weight of the ball (a force) multiplied by the distance to the ground (a displacement).

So if a good estimation on the amount of Mass is in the solar system, can be determined. We should be able to determine how long the Universe has been in existence.

So in a way RT=D is not the same thing as E=MC^2, and in another it is.

Consider the derivation for a particle in constrained movement. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29)

Consider a particle P that follows the trajectory X(t) with a force F acting on it. Isolate the particle from its environment to expose constraint forces R, then Newton's Law takes the form

F + R = MX

where M is the mass of the particle.

So to simplify this statement (Force=Mass*Trajectory)

Again we see the similarity: Force.Distance.Energy = Mass.Time * Trajectory.Rate.C^2

it's worth noting that not every equation has the same meaning. E=MC^2 means something in large part because one of the dimensions of the equation is a constant in all reference frames

(and study the implications of that for a few minutes and your mind will be blown to smithereens)

Yes, and It is when the details are all placed together that the picture can be seen.

@Onlyheisgood. I think you might be reading into this too much

Yes, and I might be reading into it too little.

I find it interesting the idea that Mass can be formed by dividing energy from the speed of light squared.

it is interesting, but when you consider what we are made of, it's not particularly surprising

the bits that make up mass are in themselves energetic particles

Yes

so it makes sense. And I think it fuels why people like Hawking and others theorize about a theory of everything.

because, ultimately, everything in the universe is made of the same basic stuff.

It's made of the Lord ^^

Divided Speed hmm

of? perhaps, though perhaps not (I'd argue on the not side, and I'll explain why in a moment). By yes

I believe we are made from the Word of God.

Want to give you some time so I'm gonna wait a bit for ya.

Might be good to present evidence rather than let it sit. What's your backup on that idea?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." (John 1:1-3 NKJV)

One "Absolute Constant" that the "Entire Universe" has is this. That at it's foundation is the "Word of God".

This then is how it grows from there. There is the Word, the Word forms the Particles, The Particles form the Atoms, and the Atoms form Everything.

So we have a living God who allows me to be right here right now, and is currently talking to me and to you and to all.

Isn't that so cool ^^,

I think that's a lot to pin on something that's incredibly metephorical

Well here we are. Looking right at him.

Anybody here going to the Seeds Conference in march? (creative and technical production church stuff)

so that 'Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven. (Mark 4:12 NKJV)

@rfusca not I (where is it btw?)

So if M=E/c^2 Is this saying that different Masses have different amounts of Energy?

@rfusca Don't Know.

@waxeagle Tulsa - at Church on the Move

@Onlyheisgood. it's saying that more massive things are more energetic. Yes. Though the units are weirdly presented.

(and this is borne out if you look at the more massive elements they are so energetic that they're unstable)

Ok so I'm imagining the Lord speaking right. and then the vibrations that are coming out of him start to group together.

Considering the size of the constant rate. This kind of pulls me away from a big bang concept.

It seems more like a 'Press Making Spaghetti', then the noodles wrapping around each other to form matter.

I think what you're saying a huge stretch that's not really solidly supported by either scripture or science so it's pure conjecture

However when you look into the Universe the position and formation of the Galaxies it makes some sense to me.

Wouldn't it be more likely that if there was a big bang that the galaxies would all be rotating around each other like one big huge galaxy?

Statement of Weakness: I do not understand why C^2 is the chosen constant.

first and foremost, m^2/s^2 is required to get the units right. After that the speed of light is a universal constant. The value doesn't change no matter your frame of reference

(the implications of which are incredibly weird)

@Onlyheisgood. emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Deriving.htm - pretty easy to see if you know a bit of basic calculus and physics

I do not know what the s^2 means.

seconds squared

Oh OK coolness, thanks bro ^^,

Energy is in Joules, Joules are a measure of Work, Work is expressed in F * D so we have F*m, Force is mass * acel so that's kg * m/s^2 so that means the units we need on the other side of the equation is m * kg * m/s^2

(lol my * got eaten)

@rfusca I never took calculus, but TYTY

Thank you so much.

Let us start with 0

Then it splits and we have -1 and +1

how much physics have you had?

I had a year in High School, know that I am weak. I see what the Lord shows me. Then I say what I see.

I'd caution you against developing your own theory of how the world works without first studying what we've learned so far via physics/calc

I do not need the knowledge when the Processors are with me.

because many of the things you're talking about are heavily studied

'the Processors'?

I think we're done here.

But the Lord is plain to see.

@waxeagle lol

In a way we are done here, and in a way we are just getting started.

I advise against following King Thorn Bush.

When he is on your mind it is difficult to Speak Righteousness.

@waxeagle Know that you are loved by me, and I consider you a friend.

If you need time I can wait.

@Onlyheisgood. interesting parable. Do you know what it means?

@Onlyheisgood. quite all right, the better/best king has come and there is no longer need to seek another :).

(but that doesn't preclude using the tools he's given us to understand his creation, which is what I believe is the purpose of science)

@AffableGeek ??? I see he isn't hanging around chat.....

my question that I pose here in chat stems from one of his comments.

are we assuming that we need to prove everything in bible as accurate when answering questions here on the site?

I assumed that when asking a question here it was a given that the bible is a true and accurate account.

@Malachi I don't think that's his point. The question is asking about day to day involvement and you're point to specific power events

I see....

I will update when I get a chance, it's a little tricky to do while at work, while I don't hide what I am I don't want to get fired for misuse of state property either....lol

nope, have to make sure you follow the rules at your workplace

15 minutes might be reasonable for a break but after that I need to find time at home.... which I am going to find a lot more, because I need to study this stuff, it's calling to me constantly

anyway, will be back in about 5 hours

@waxeagle Yup :)

@Malachi Just like Wax was saying, you've pointed out a few dramatic examples over an extremely long time span. The question is asking about day to day involvement. Your audience is going to be dismissive of the miraculuous anyways, so refocusing your question would make it more persuasive to the people who need to hear the answer most

@AffableGeek thank you for your reply

@waxeagle lol