From bluesky:
Posit that to be judged for a sin implies that information about the sin is available to god/jesus.
Information implies entropy implies energy implies mass.
...so you can run an attack on heaven by sinmaxxing so hard Christ converts into a black hole from sheer acquired mass-energy and oneshots God by trapping him in something not even His light can escape from
Unfortunately, this fails in both #physics and #theology.
The physics failure is in skipping part of the full energy–momentum relation. Energy does not imply mass. It implies mass or momentum. Photons have energy, but they do not have mass, for example.
The theology failure is that the Christian conception of God (the Father) is external to spacetime, i.e. transcendent. There's no metric tensor to apply. There's no general relativistic description for the relationship between God and the physical universe. General relativistic concepts like black holes do not apply.
Then you have the issue of God (the Son) as intercessor to deal with. Sins don't get sent straight to God the Father.
Good try. No cigar, though.
@JdeBP @cstross - (I'm going to regret this)
"Energy does not imply mass."
Thoroughly incorrect. They are literally the same thing.
"Photons have energy, but they do not have mass, for example."
Incorrect.
Photons have a _rest mass_ of zero; their mass consists entirely of the kinetic energy term. A photon has a mass of (h * frequency) / c^2.
You are likely going to regret that. (-:
When discussing the energy–momentum relation, mass *is* by convention rest mass, as the usual formulation E^2=m^2×c^4+(p×c)^2 is in terms of rest mass m.
The relation says that energy does not imply mass when m=0. Energy implies the momentum portion of the sum, which photons have, defined as p=h/λ.
With m=0 the full form reduces to E^2=(p×c)^2 which after substitution for photon momentum becomes E=c×h/λ=h×f .
But this does not become a statement about mass. It's fallacious to then substitute E=m×c^2 and solve for m to get m=h×f/c^2 .
E=m×c^2 is a different reduced case for massive stationary objects (m>0, p=0), neither of which is the case for photons. Furthermore, the maths yields divergent γ=∞ Taylor series sums when u=c so thinking of K.E. terms for photons is aphysical.
Energy-mass equivalence is a special form for the case of m>0, γ≠∞. Energy does not imply mass in the general case.
Charlie Stross
JdeBP
John Maxwell