Deepak Kapur

Thanks for your answer. I also knew it to be the same, the way you described it... But... Somehow, I cannot wrap my head (may be an empty one) around the concepts of 'addition' and 'multiplication'. 1. When two balls collide, we multiply their masses. 2. When two forces act , we add forces. My question is that when two balls collide, they are actually exerting force only.... so why to multiply????? Let me try to explain what I am saying........... Suppose there is a big ball. Two small balls collide with it from different sides. a) We usually form an equation in which all the 3 masses are multiplied. b) Why can't we take the collision by two small balls as forces acting on the big ball and in fact add the two small masses in our equation.

I am not affirming anything, I just want to satisfy my curiosity. Another example... A cube has length 2m. Its volume is 8m3. Why are the units multiplied (I.e. meter cube). Shouldn't they be added?

I push a ball hard. It starts to move. 1. Does it accelerate only for the time 'from my hand touching it' to 'my hand leaving it'? 2. After my hand leaves the ball, it attains uniform motion ( assuming no kind of friction). What sustains this uniform motion? 3. Why does the ball ever move? Why doesn't the energy that I supply to it just gets distributed as its internal energy?

Isn't local speed of light affected by the spontaneous creation of particles in empty space?

I was just wondering...... Wherever any constant of proportionality (or even any co-efficient ) is used it is always multiplied and never added. Is it because of our preference or is this the way nature works?

Do you mean information/detection/measurement=Creation

In mathematics, two variables are proportional if a change in one is always accompanied by a change in the other, and if the changes are always related by use of a constant. i.e. y=kx Doesn’t the above definition apply to Y=k+x

Was there light at the very instant of Big Bang?

Actually, I wanted to say that the so called 'big questions'-which are considered to the source of all that there is- are also infinite. So, in principle, one can keep on asking logical questions about the origin of the universe ad infinitum, whatever may be our answer regarding its origin. If say after say n questions, we start getting the same answer again and again, our next question can be, Why is it that we are getting the same answer again and again? What is the mechanism behind this sameness of answers? It's not about the finiteness of human life, its about the logical endlessness of the valid questions that can be asked.

From what you have said, it follows, If someone says atom/electron/matter/sun/moon/reality is unreal we can always say - so what? IMHO this is not the kind of attitude that science strives for.

1. Some people say that an eternal God/mind is the creator of this universe, i.e the universe is contingent. 2. Some others say that some fundamental particle (s) has have always existed and it's their interplay, we call universe. 3. Still, some others say that our universe arose spontaneously from nothing. In my view, each of the above scenario needs explanation. Be it Eternal God, eternal matter or spontaneous creation, one can always ask, What is the mechanism that led to eternal God, eternal matter or spontaneous creation? If we get hold of some mechanism to explain the above points, again the question arises as to what is the mechanism of the mechanism that we have found out to explain the above three positions. In the light of what is mentioned above, can we say that, 'Knowledge is infinite as there can be no end to our questions'

It is said that, Speed of light is c, locally. What does locally mean here?

I think, motion is the natural state of all entities in this universe. Rest is just a special case when two objects have the same velocity. So, motion is inextricably linked to our physics. Change in motion is interpreted as 'time'. In a universe, where everything is static ( even electrons and nucleons), we wouldn't even conceptualize/think of time. In fact, it's doubtful whether a universe without motion can even exist.

Thanks for elaborate reply. I don't want to argue, I just want to clarify things 1. Suppose I apply such a huge force to a ball that its speed approaches the speed of light. In this case It would mean 'more the force, more the mass'. I know you would tell me that I am confusing things and a separate equation is needed for such a scenario. My 2nd point is as follows....... 2. If we need a second equation this time, does it mean that, 'an equation does not only describe nature but it describes our view point (thoughts, mind) as well?' Thanks. BTW, I have been banned by 'Physics Forums' over and over again . I tried different 'avatars' but they found it every time and closed my account. So, don't ban me. It's they who directed me here.

I know what I am saying is annoying because I also know what the 'correct' interpretation is. I just want to say that do we have to cherry pick our conclusions from any equation, when it offers other possibility/possibilities? F=ma very well conveys the idea that Force is proportional to mass,as pointed out by Delta 1212. Doesn't it mean, greater the force, greater the mass? Why? I don't get the idea behind 'units' because they can be set in different ways and in every system of unit, the idea that 'force is proportional to mass' will be there. If you say its the numerical value of force that is proportional to numerical value of mass, again it means greater the force greater the mass. Plz take pains to see the equation from my point of view ( even if it is wrong). In the example of wages, it is the 'pay' that is proportional to the 'no. of hours worked'. This is different from F=ma situation.

I think here 'equal' means really 'equal' and not just 'proportional' I take a similar example. F=ma Put a=3 F=3m or F=m+m+m (i.e the force acting on a body = adding mass of a body to itself 3 times) In other words, when this Force acts on a body, does the body's mass really become triple its previous mass? Thanks for the clarification. Do you mean that in this example 'mass' and 'acceleration' interact with each other? I think, 'mass' and 'acceleration' are properties/quantities of the same object/body. Objects can interact, how can the quantities interact?

Hi all, F=ma If a=1, F=m How can force and mass be equated and become equal. They are different entities. It' s same like saying wood=iron

According to uncertainty principle, it's not possible to measure the position and momentum of an atomic particle ( say electron) simultaneously. Now, suppose a scientist grows so small in size that an electron is the size of a big ball (or planet) for him. Is uncertainity principle applicable for the scientist also. Does it mean that it's only the size difference that we construe as quantum phenomenon. Just being curious!

I think these equations are derived assuming that normal physical laws operate inside a black hole. At such a high density, I doubt the concept of space is valid. Moreover new theories like the 'String Theory' may altogether dispense with the concept of space-time. It's only a matter of time. I pray to God to give mankind at least 'a single law' that is proof against new theories and inquiries.