Deepak Kapur

1. But, if ToE is formulated...won't it mean that we have reached something, which has to be taken as a 'given'. 2. If there is always something more to discover, doesn't it mean that 'the never ending exploration' is to be taken as a 'given'?

Let's go in distant future. Let's assume that science has discovered all the fundamental particles/concepts that explain this universe completely. My questions are as follows: 1. Won't these fundamental particles have to be taken as a 'given' (with no further explanation possible)? 2. Is this the ultimate future of science...to reach at something, which has to be taken as a given?

Lets consider a line of length 1m. If space is continuous, it means there is an infinity of points in this line. Now, size of each point=1/infinity=0 This implies that our line is of zero size because its constituents are all of zero size. How to resolve this contradiction?

I want to say that in a ray of light there is no space between the photons that make up the ray.....so, isn't light ray continuous?

Science says that light is not continuous but discrete, as it comes in small packets called 'quanta' I want to ask.... Is there any space between the quanta of light? If not, isn't this a continuity in its own right?

Does it mean that concepts like 'Fundamental Reality', Fundamental Truth'......rather 'anything fundamental' are logically impossible because such concepts also lead to further questions?

Can the enquiring spirit in us be ever quenched? e.g. 1. Suppose, science finds the fundamental particle...next question can be...What mechanism caused this fundamental particle?....or.....How it came about? If someone says, it has been always there...one can ask...What is the mechanism through which something can be eternal? and so on.... 2. Suppose, someone finds God and says that He/She/It exists eternally/necessarily...next question can be...Why only He is a necessarily existing creature and not some other one? or What mechanism leads to necessary existence? and so on.... In a nutshell, can questions ever end? Any thoughts, not necessarily serious ones....

I think the situation is more complex, as it shows the 'interaction' between two masses and the force that 'this interaction' creates....

So....you find it okay??? Well, i wanted to convey something like this only from the beginning...that force is proportional to mass.. But.... If F is proportional to mass, then why m is called the constant of proportinality in the equation F=ma?

You can reprimand me even more for what i am going to write below....but do explain why it is wrong... 'Force acting on a body is directly proportional to the mass of the body and also is directly proportional to the acceleration of the body. More the mass more the force required. More the acceleration, more the force required. So, F=kma....k being a constant of proportionality.

Why not... 'When an object moves with constant acceleration, the magnitude of the force acting on it is directly proportional to the mass of the body. If we increase the mass keeping acceleration constant, the force also has to be increased proportinately to maintain that particular constant acceleration.'

Then...i think....it shouldnt be called a LAW.. Why didnt Newton use proportionality for this because Studiot tells me that proportionality was much prevalent those days than the concept of an equation... Does it mean there is really no difference between proportinality and equality....its just a matter of convenience and perspective?

WITH ALL THE DUE RESPECT, You havent explained in SIMPLE ENGLISH ( 2 or 3 sentences) the meaning of F=ma. and... You havent explained in SIMPLE ENGLISH ( 2 or 3 sentences) why options 2 and 3 dont follow. ( even when magnitude of force and mass is same) A good teacher is one who STOOPS to the level of the student, to make him understand things...so...plz do that....and dont simply say that my optoons 2 and 3 are wrong. I myself know they are wrong ..... but why..... ( AGAIN, SIMPLE ENGLISH PLEASE) I am sorry...THIS MUST BE REALLY PAIN & GRIEF FOR YOU. One more thing...i fully understand what you are saying in post 28 and 32.

Newton's second law states (roughly), The rate of change of momentum of a body is equal to the force acting on the body and is in the same direction.... Why 'equal to' and not 'proportional to' In various other formulas we use 'proportional to' and not 'equal to'. What's the difference?

Hi Studiot, I am here, again (not to annoy you...) 1. So, what meaning/meanings can be attributed to F=ma? ( IN SIMPLE ENGLISH ) And... 2. plz explain how the following are wrong ( see, i am not forcing anything, just trying to understand..) (2.If a body moves with an acceleration of 1m/s2, then the magnitude of the force acting on the body is equal to the magnitude of the mass of the body. 3.If a body moves with an acceleration of 1m/s2, then the force acting on the body is proportionl to the mass of the body. (as Delta 1212 said in post 9) Suppose, in F=ma m=1kg and a=1m/s2.....then....F=1kgm/s2 m=2kg and a=1m/s2.....then....F=2kgm/s2 m=3kg and f=1m/s2.....then....F=3kgm/s2 So aren't.... 2 and 3 ....true above.. i.e the 'magnitude' of force is equal/and proportional to the 'magnitude' of mass??? ( again, no enforcement of anything)