Form Follows Function???..."For once and for all!"

[ArchiMotion]

DJ, sorry to say but it seems you are becoming known now for avoiding answering questions when you have no answer. Answer with an excuse and say you already know. Good tactics.

Anyone out there willing to accept the challenge and answer this interesting question posed ? -->>

Where did the energy come from? If there was a big bang, where did the original energy come from to create it?

[solidred]

It strikes me that modern science has revived the credibility of 'the enigmatic'. Here, I'm thinking of quantum mechanics and the space-time continuum. It's a bit like the question 'does God exist?', this question 'where did the original energy come from?'. And, of course, 'God' is often given as the latter's answer. But this way of thinking goes on and on I mean... if God created the Big Bang then well where did God come from?
'passeth all understanding' is useful in this context. In this forum indeed, in this very thread, we're getting all tied up in knots of all sorts... linguistic ones, historical ones, philosophical-logical ones, about 'Form Follows Function' which points me to a tentative understanding of our human lack of understanding. Which is not a caesaura created such that some bigot can stride in with The Answer. We, as humans, are on planet earth, which is in the universe. We're very adaptable and smart and all, but we ain't omnipotent. We're even smart enough to develop things like mathematics with which to extend the reach of our 'common sense' understanding of reality. I guess poetry is another means... I mean, good poetry, not condensed obfuscation

Anyhow, the Beatles and Jesus both had it right in my view 'Love, love, love...'(sing along now ). Even if the nature of reality; it's mind-bogglingly warped uber-complexity occasionally defeats us... at least we know how to love. Get this available skill right and most other problems take care of themselves. Except tsunamis, earthquakes etc. For those, we can blame you-know-who: The European Union Grand Conspiracy!

[csintexas]

Ah, the age old question -why are we here?

It would have been a lot easier if nothing ever existed. We can understand that. There was never anything and there never will be, just perfect emptiness.

But somehow something broke that perfection and energy became. Let there be light!

If it was God then where did God come from? We can never know this fundamental question. No simple logic or complex math will ever tell us so we substitute our own beliefs.

My own simple logic tells me that energy has always been and will always be here. It could be that the original energy is God though I don't believe in the traditional Christian concept.

I like to think that the universe is in a never ending cycle of expansion and contraction. Perhaps something like a beating heart in an otherwise empty space. Or maybe there are others like ours but so far away that we think ours is the only one.

[djswan]

Who the heck said I was a poet?

[ArchiMotion]

Well, I find this the problem with modern science - it pretends to have the answers for everything, and attempts to do so, but when it gets back to the original question of where it all came from, it simply cannot answer, and then the answer moves over to religion to answer. So if science cannot answer the biggest question of all, how can we expect its assumptions at lower levels are correct? Religion has already answered the question and nobody is listening. Rather, they would listen to the Beatles or assume they were almost as famous as Jesus, as they themselves suggested at some point, quite ludicrous....... the story of this person extends back through the Ages, while the Beatles have what.... how many years of popularity? Do you really think 200, 300, 500, 1000 or even 2000 years from now the Beatles will be considered as significant in history as the entire dating of the modern world into B.C. and A.D. ? But of course, our little minds, framed upon our own belly, only see what is immediately placed before us, so that we miss the great picture. And we confine ourselves to little pockets of thought, or groups which conform to our pre-conceived ideas, the most troubling of all hazards.

And back to subject, we haven't heard Solidred's response on the definitive answer - Form Follows Function or not? From all we have concluded thus far, it is nothing more then a cleverly contrived myth.

[djswan]

I can be saved through Jesus?

[csintexas]

From all we have concluded thus far, it is nothing more then a cleverly contrived myth.

I guess. (If what you mean by we is you)

Personally I can't comprehend your distinction between need and function. The function something is created for is directly related to someones need.

A building is a building and a bird is a bird. Most functions that go on within a building are relatively similar but a bank may have a drive through teller structure where as a drive through for a fast food place will be different. Houses have different functional requirements than office buildings, etc..

Generally a building would have to be modified to meet it's new functional requirements anytime it's function changes which is basically creating a new building from an old one. Not unlike the difference between an Eagle and a Turkey.

[ArchiMotion]

Special Relativity Theory a Hoax -->>

http://users.isp.com/retic/physics/hoax.htm

[csintexas]

cstexas - now what is this story of calling others "myths". How can an individual who exists be a "myth". This is illogical. Or is this some attempt to ridicule me? What is your agenda anyways?

I don't understand the question. Where is the "myths" quote from?

[ArchiMotion]

[ArchiMotion]

[csintexas]

I would not take lack of comment as agreement (although you and SDR seem to be on the same page in distinguishing needs from function)

You are the one who originally said:

"...it is nothing more then a cleverly contrived myth."

Not me. All I was saying is that there is no general agreement on this subject.

[djswan]

Want to dance ArchiMotion?


I'm just guessing too but there is a chance. I believe in risk.

[djswan]

Do you have the answers ArchiMotion? Tell us. Please

I'll be grading you. Ready set go.

[ArchiMotion]

I have answers yes, but I believe around these forums it is somewhat "politically incorrect" to discuss these issues, and provide the answers, as these answers delve into areas of philosophy and religion and are quite complex and require somewhat of an open mind-set, not also seen very much around here.

Now, with relation to modern science - it is in itself based on models developed by scientists which in essence deny religion or philosophy an opportunity to provide the answer. Rather, if relies only on what can be tested by the scientific methodology. Thus, it excludes many areas of human knowledge and experience, including miracles, unexplained phenomena, and many mysteries which have existed for centuries.

It's application thus is limited to only what can be experimentally detected in some way.

According to the article I have been expounding upon, the very theories that Einstein elaborated have their foundation based on mathematics and other theories that at times were not fully based on observational fact, and omitted even elements such as gravity in the theories, replacing these with fudge factors or ideas such as the "ether" of space. Not that I entirely dis-agree with this concept, and there is an entire area of study devoted to this topic.

See this site --->>

http://ether.sciences.free.fr/bases.htm

Certainly there are other proponents of this, including Nikola Tesla, and I am not entirely against the idea. But the key to the article is the fact that many of the theories, based on mathematical models, omit important elements in the equations, and also were designed in such a way that they could be experimentally observed. Thus, when we have Nasa spending billions of dollars to prove the equations and theories, they are in essence observationally proving what was designed to be observational, but which may not reflect all the complete aspects of reality, since the formulas, theories and equations are limited models. Thus, it is possible to confirm ideas and models which may not reflect the full spectrum of reality, simply because there is a tendency to confirm ideas and theories we already believe and have pre-established. Especially when those models are designed in such a way that they can be observationally proved. But, as the article demonstrates, they are flawed models and omit key elements of physics in the equations, such as gravity, for example.