Energy is Molecular. Force is Atomic.

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.