D Tibbets wrote:Everything is derived from faith, whether the universe was created in a big bang, or an act of God (where did he come from?) we are forced to take it on faith.
No. This is quite incorrect. There are self-standing axioms that would be true for any one, any where, in any type of universe, and whether you are dead or alive. A simple example are the 5 euclidean solids. These are a different sort of 'imagined' thing, they can be shown to 'exist' and any intelligent creature at any point in, or out, of time and space could consider and conclude that there are 5, and only 5, regular 3 dimensional shapes.
In a similar way, but more difficult to argue perhaps (hence I started with something elementary), the notion of force is almost impossible to describe - no matter how useful the concept. To try to comprehend how forces prevent my montior, in front of me, from sinking into my table is an enormously difficult stretch, though we can conceptualise the whole issues as a 'force' and declare a reaction to the weight of the montor. You seem to be arguing that you're happy to take that as a faith-based observation, but there is no need when you consider that for the monitor to sink into the table would require a rapid decrease in entropy for which there is no latent energy to feed that process, hence it doesn't happen. This doesn't *need* to be a faith based observation because I am simply, and only, basing my observation on the very simplest of axioms; that the monitor and table are different things that are located with respect to each other. The consequence stemming from the axiom and thermodynamics is that either they can mix and release energy, or they would need energy to do so and there isn't any freely avaliable. The monitor and the table are not mixing so all I have to observe is that there is no free energy which they can use to do so, whereas you are left in your *faith based* darkness of understanding of why the monitor doesn't sink into the table and have to dream up 'a reaction force' to help you get by in life without getting too confused about it. You will be compelled to wonder how the electric fields of the electrons at the surfaces of these object repell each other, and then you might start wondering why, if the electrons get so close together that they interact electrically, that some chemical process doesn't go on such that any two substances don't start interacting chemically when they sit on top of each other.
The notion of 'forces' is great for doing engineering and basic physics, but they start to let you down when you probe the reality of matter and reality a little more.
I realise this might offend your conventionality of education. After all, I am sure you were taught that Newton said that an object remains at rest until a force acts on it, but you weren't encouraged to ask 'why does it move, then, once a force *is* applied?'. To get an object moving you have to put in energy. But energy is force over distance, yet if an object is stationary then how do you apply a force? [It's a rhetorical question, because you can then include lots of 'patch-up' ideas to make it work. Impusle and momentum, in this case. But they *are* patch-up ideas and if you believe in them all then you'll end up building M-E thrusters and other anti-gravity ideas. 'Forces' let you down, in the end, and you have to move to pure entropy considerations to make sense of things.]