Deepak Kapur

 

How is science "helpless" in its explanation of your marble? What else do you need to know about it? I don't understand why you wave your hand at an imagined gap in our knowledge between your marble and when our universe changed from a hot, dense state to more like what we see now.

 

What do you find inexplicable about your marble?

 

 

I think you may be caught in a logic loop. You complain about duality, but can't explain how someone could understand bliss without having experienced something different to compare it to.

How is science "helpless" in its explanation of your marble? What else do you need to know about it? I don't understand why you wave your hand at an imagined gap in our knowledge between your marble and when our universe changed from a hot, dense state to more like what we see now.

 

What do you find inexplicable about your marble?

 

 

 

It's not my marble.....it can be any marble!

 

Everything that we have in this universe (including the marble) is the direct/indirect result of the big bang. When the cause itself is inexplicable, whatever that can be said of the result is not the full answer.

 

Moreover, various concepts that are required to explain marble and its movement like mass, space, time, arrow of time, inertia, entropy etc. are debatable/not fully understood in contemporary science.

 

 

 

I think you may be caught in a logic loop. You complain about duality, but can't explain how someone could understand bliss without having experienced something different to compare it to.

 

 

I just want to say we should not have been created in the very first place but should have existed as an indivisible part of the supreme bliss. Now, that we have been created (i.e duality has been created), its good to reach up to that bliss but it's not good on the part of the creator to have created us/duality ( when we are devoid of the bliss that is essential nature of the creator/supreme ideal/God/pure idea/supreme mind).

 

What accounts for the gravitational effect of a galaxy in space.........

 

1. The outermost stars

 

or

 

2. All the stars (matter, black hole etc.) that are present in it taken together

 

 

If the answer is all the stars, how does the gravity of all the stars (entities) accumulate, when there are huge distances among them?

 

 

An example,

 

 

A space probe that has to escape our solar system is concerned with the gravity of the last planet (Neptune or may be Pluto or Sun) rather than the gravity of Earth, Mercury or Venus.

 

When the effect of these 3 planets has a negligible effect on the far away probe, how can stars in the interior of a galaxy (say A) have any significant gravitational effect on the stars of the next galaxy (B), assuming that both the galaxies are a part of a cluster of galaxies? In other words, how do clusters of galaxies stay together?

Phi for All, on 10 Jun 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

 

 

In science, the term is unfalsifiable.

 

 

 

I could not write more in the previous post as the cursor refused to create more space, so I am continuing here................

 

 

 

Many things can be made ridiculous/supernatural/unfalsifiable in science by the use of right words and concepts...

 

Just a small example (there are many).....

 

As per contemporary science, time is said to have begun with big bang itself. So, if time began with the big bang, how did the universe decide that now is the 'time' to come into existence? This seems ridiculous.

 

Does this mean our concept of time is wrong?

 

Does it mean there is something supernatural before the big bang?

 

Does it mean that when we have found what caused big bang ( and how it happened), we would have all our questions solved for ever?

 

A preliminary answer to all the above questions is a NO.

 

Seen from this view point, there is nothing like 'supernatural'. Everything 'natural' is 'supernatural' until understood. But this does not give us guarantee that we will be able to explain all the natural things. Questions just continue ad infinitum....

 

 

So its not a question of believing in something unfalsiable (supernatural), its about the inherent infinite & inexplicable nature of knowledge (or universe or existence or anything).

 

e.g.

 

I have a marble in my hand. Can I explain it...... Only to some extent.

 

Science/Knowledge can explain the place it was made, It can explain the elements it contains, It can explain what led to the formation of its constituent elements (and various other associated things), but beyond that It is just helpless, because beyond it we encounter bigbang. In future we may go many steps further but ultimately we would be stuck at a point that would not be explicable by the prevailing theories at that time. Beyond that everything would be supernatural/inexplicable.

 

 

 

 

If anyone can propose any scenario (even extremely hypothetical) that brings an end to all further questions, please share it

.

Phi for All, on 10 Jun 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

 

 

If both concepts are unexplainable, perhaps both are wrong and there is another explanation.

 

 

 

At present, three prominent theories about the origin of our universe are talked about..

 

1. Big Bang ( something like spontaneous creation).

 

2. Presence of eternal matter ( its interactions have led to our universe).

 

3. Presence of an eternal creator ( the eternal creator created our 'contingent' universe)

 

There are others also but all including the 3 mentioned above are inexplicable.

 

That's why I said that when everything is explicable what the harm in believing in an eternal creator ( an ideal, an idea )

 

 

If anyone can even have a wild idea of a theory/concept that explains everything about the creation of our universe and leaves no room for further questions, please share it.

 

 

 

 

There seems to be a contradiction here: if you have already experienced this state then why can’t you find it again? And why the appeals to god?

 

 

 

It’s not a cruel process, it’s just a process; acceptance is a large part of being content.

 

 

 

 

Introspection is a necessary part of contentment and may lead to understanding the five illusions that most of us labour under, those are:

 

1. The illusion that knowledge equates to understanding.

 

2. The illusion that one can control anything other than oneself.

 

3. The illusion that expectation equals results.

 

4. The illusion that wants equals need.

 

5. The illusion that one can live anywhere but now and here.

 

There seems to be a contradiction here: if you have already experienced this state then why can’t you find it again? And why the appeals to god?

 

Experiencing bliss in not a one time activity...it's a long process. I have just tasted a bit of it. My goal is eternal bliss. I am just at the start of a long journey.

When you attain supreme bliss, you yourself become God (there is no duality whatsoever). Till then appeals to that God( eternal blissful state) are a step in that direction only.

 

 

 

It’s not a cruel process, it’s just a process; acceptance is a large part of being content.

 

If I am being eaten piece by piece by a group of wolves, I will not say, it's just a process.

 

 

 

Introspection is a necessary part of contentment and may lead to understanding the five illusions that most of us labour under, those are:

 

1. The illusion that knowledge equates to understanding.

 

2. The illusion that one can control anything other than oneself.

 

3. The illusion that expectation equals results.

 

4. The illusion that wants equals need.

 

5. The illusion that one can live anywhere but now and here.

 

 

Some people even say that the reality we experience is just an illusion, because we are just part of a matrix or we are just thoughts in somebody's mind. Such introspections don't lead to the feelings of bliss, love for all and abhorrence for duality.

This .....

This odd concept we have of "right" overcoming "need" gets us into lots of compromising positions. We should value all life, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the reality of survival. To me, it's disrespectful to the animals and plants that keep us alive when we moan about having to kill them to survive. It's a necessary process, acknowledge it, honor it, keep it honest and respectful. But don't pretend like it's wrong to kill and eat other animals and plants. None of them would agree with you.

 

I think......

If a lion comes and eats someone's child in order to satisfy his hunger, he/she would never say.........

It's a necessary process, I should acknowledge it, honor it, keep it honest and respectful.......and such things. He/She would indeed consider it 'evil'.

 

 

 

Interdependence is a very efficient way to maximize the use of resources.

 

Such interdependence breeds evil as mentioned above.

 

 

 

 

If someone has been fat all their life, they know nothing else. If you want them to be truly motivated to lose weight, let them be skinny for a day to see what it's like.

Sometimes it's hard to know you want something else if there's no apparent choice.

 

If someone is extremely happy and we give him pain so that he can have a choice, I don't think it's a good move...

 

 

In science, the term is unfalsifiable. There is no way to show something supernatural to be false. This is a basic premise of the methodology science is built on, that to be considered as a trustworthy explanation, an idea has to be capable of being wrong. Gods who refuse to let themselves be observed or their actions to be consistent and predictable are acting outside of the natural physical laws science is designed to support.

If both concepts are unexplainable, perhaps both are wrong and there is another explanation.

 

Science is trying to fathom the causes of bigbang and is trying for a unified theory to explain the universe...it's a good and extremely difficult job that can be the envy of even an advanced alien race...

 

If tomorrow, such a solution/theory is formed, would it be the final word, would all questions end....

Now, suppose 2999 A.D. , would we have the final word, would all the questions end........ and so on.....

 

It does not mean that we should stop asking questions and cease our efforts.........even if the questions keep on popping up ad infinitum

 

It's not about supernatural...it's about the natural that keeps on evading our grips, that keeps on surprising us ad infinitum....

In my opinion the sooner humans acknowledge that we are on our own and that there isn't a heaven, a god to replenish the earth, and this life is all we have the better. Once we acknowledge those things we as a society can set about answering questions about the way we want to live.

 

What's the harm in believing in an ideal ( God or whatever one may call him) that....

 

....leads you to a state of bliss.

....creates love in you even for the minutest of life forms (not only love for humans alone).

....makes you realize that the life you are leading is nothing but the result of a grand killing game called 'food chain'.

....does not want blind faith but motivates you to ask questions that even seek justification from the 'ideal' that you believe in.

....hints at higher modes of living.

Deepak, to the central problem you raise, that infinite entities need explanation; what explanation you want, about why/how they are eternal?

 

Various explanations...........

 

 

Why/how are they enternal? What is the mechanism that led to this eternity?

 

Any entity that makes this complex universe should/must be more complex itself. What's the source of its complexity?

 

If an entity (like God) has existed for an infinite amount of time, how could it 'traverse' that infinite time to reach a point of creating something?

.

.

etc.

.

.

 

Various answers are available to such questions, but they seem to lead to even more questions rather than giving a solution.

 

"Supreme bliss"

How do you know such a state exists? And how does it differ from simply being content with your life and how you fit in the world?

 

It’s good to ask questions, but only answers can lead to understanding; so maybe you should re-direct your enquiries to within.

 

"Supreme bliss"

How do you know such a state exists?

 

From personal experience.........

 

 

 

 

And how does it differ from simply being content with your life and how you fit in the world?

 

Because it tells us that in order to be content in life we have to be alive first. And 'being alive' (even breathing) is such a cruel process ( courtesy the food chain) that any contentment is just a farce.

 

 

 

 

so maybe you should re-direct your enquiries to within

 

guess what...........I have already done that ( but answers still elude me, nevertheless I will be persistent in my efforts...come what may)

It is good to have faith in God? I suppose God can be a unifying meme. Provide people with a sense of belonging and closeness to others. If I were a coach, politician, CEO, or anyone that needed to motive a mass of people I would probably embrace God as a call to action.

On the other hand belief in God has cause a tremendous amount of chaos throughout history. Just as other relics of our past that divided us like racism, s3xism, empires, monopolies and so on have been phased out and universally acknowledged of bad so should God. How many have died in the name of one God and or the other? How many suffer today in God's name? I don't believe in modern society any human should put an intangible belief, based primarily on cultural bias, above their own lives.

 

I am not talking about a culture specific/area specific/planet specific/universe specific God. I am talking about that supreme being/power/goodness who has created creation ( may be one universe or infinite universes). (He may not even exist, that's not the point).

 

It's not that this God I am taking about is above reproach and enquiry.

 

He has to answer a lot of questions ( most prominent question being the presence of evil in the universe he has created).

 

 

It's only when we start believing in such an ideal that would not let pain/suffering happen to even the minutest of beings, do we tend to value humanity and life in general.

 

It's then, that we start asking to ourselves various questions like,

 

 

1. What right do I have to eat other plants/animals for my survival, when they also have life in them just like I have life?

2. Why would a good creator allow this?

3. Why would a good creator even allow duality, when it smacks of discrimination by way of separation from the state of pure bliss?

4. Why should I believe in eternal matter/universe rather than an eternal creator, when both concepts are unexplainable ?

.

.

. etc.

 

When such an ideal is firmly entrenched in us, we come close to this ideal ( God) and in some cases human beings themselves become God, by pursuing such ideals. They go beyond this material world to a state that is pure bliss devoid of any duality. May be they also get answers to all the disturbing questions.

It's not speculation but something that some spiritual/religious masters have experienced all over the world.

This leads to another question to be asked from God.......

Why only some people experience this state of supreme bliss, when many sincerely try to achieve it? Isn't it discrimination on your part?

 

Matter and infinite universe/s has an explanation; god and souls does not and cannot.

 

BTW the coloured text is not as entertaining as you might think.

Matter and infinite universe/s has an explanation; god and souls does not and cannot.

Anything 'actually infinite' has explanation/reasons/theories that ultimately lead to 'infinite regress'.

 

 

 

BTW the coloured text is not as entertaining as you might think.

 

I am sorry if you found it bad!. BTW do tell me if there is any rule on this forum that forbids this kind of colouring ( because I am A burnt Child who Dreads Fire).

Faith doesn't seem to be the right word to use in regards to rational intelligibility. If something is rational, I should be able to follow the logic used to arrive there, test the methodology and form similar conclusions. But if I do that, I'm not really taking it on faith, am I?

 

 

I don't understand your definition of blind faith. Many religious texts talk about priests telling the people that their god has commanded them to go vanquish their enemies. Gods frequently commanded their followers to go kill people. How can you have "faith" (which is supposed to be a very strong form of belief) your god would never command you to kill people?

 

 

Faith seems to ask me to believe very strongly in things I can't possibly know.

 

Faith doesn't seem to be the right word to use in regards to rational intelligibility. If something is rational, I should be able to follow the logic used to arrive there, test the methodology and form similar conclusions. But if I do that, I'm not really taking it on faith, am I?

 

 

I also follow logic when I conclude that the universe is rationally intelligent.

But.............

When Quantum Mechanics tells me that the universe is ultimately the result of random motion and spontaneous creation & annihilation of elementary particles, what do I do?........

 

Do I stop my quest for rational intelligibility/science? NO. NEVER!

 

So, when despite the fact that anarchy is the ultimate law of our universe, I keep on pondering over the problem/experiments with full zest & zeal, aren't I having faith in my observation that the universe is rationally intelligible?

Deepak, as per Vedic philosophy, eternal god didn't created souls at some point of time. It says souls too are eternal. Furthur, by that philosophy, souls turned against divinity, not at some point of time, but have been such by the time they attain god. Most of the scriptures are not available online; if you want I can provide the numbers and the right cantos.

 

Yes, I also have read that as per Vedas, souls exist independently of God and are fixed in number,

but.........

this is not the central problem here.

 

The problem is that eternal things (God, soul, matter, infinite universes etc.) also need explanation!

 

Isn't "faith" and "blind faith" the same thing? What makes faith "not blind"?

 

This is a very difficult question to answer.

 

 

Someone said (sorry to forget his name and not to quote the exact words), 'We got to have faith in the rational intelligibility of the universe, in order to do science.'

 

Here I think, faith is not blind ( though some people say this faith is also blind).

 

 

For me, If someone tells me to kill a person because my/a particular religion says so, and I do it, it is blind faith because I have faith in God that He would never command such a thing.

Well, he decided that it wasn't going to be given on a plate. How can you know happiness without experiencing it's opposite ...one needs a reference.

 

I think, someone whom we adore, someone whom we consider to possess the highest standard in everything will not do such a thing.

 

 

In my opinion,

 

Either God will create every being in his true image (an image that is devoid of every kind of pain and suffering, just like himself).

or

He would not create anybody at all . His divine grace would never allow him to commit such an act of discrimination.

Deepak, your name suggests that you are an Indian. I frame this reply assuming that you want an answer from Vedic philosophy. First of all, as I know of Vedas, God didn't created duality, neither he created universe. Souls are eternal, they are just made visible again, so is universe; all restored to their previous state and then taken by Him again into himself (not liberation, just a state devoid of karma).

 

Yes, I am an Indian and know something about Vedic Philosophy also.

 

In Vedic philosophy God, Souls and matter are eternal.

 

 

In this case,

 

My question moves a step back, as below

 

 

Isn't it immoral (or evil) for an eternal entity to create duality ( in the form of God, Souls and matter)?

 

In other words, when an eternal entity knows that the entities I am going to create will in turn make beings that miss the blissful state (possessed by God), creation of a universe itself seems to be a blunder at the least.

 

If one says God, Souls and matter are eternal, the question does not go away.

 

because.................

 

Eternal things also need explanation and they also need justify their actions, if any.

 

We simply can't say that such things are beyond us and so we ought not ask questions. This would be an insult to the rational faculty that we have and which is a result/order/mechanism of these eternal entities only.

The great thing about God is that he/she/it sets the standard for all things in the natural world. God cant be wrong about anything. To imply so just triggers the argument that the human mind just cant see the whole picture the way god does.

As a fictional character God has no limit and can not be tied down to anything logical or real.

 

It's good to have faith in God ( in some supreme ideal).

 

But, I think we should never suspend our rational capabilities, that is a gift to us given by God himself. We should believe in God but side by side keep on asking him questions like,

 

 

Why did You create duality?

 

Why do you allow evil? A supremely good being would never allow even an iota of suffering even if it leads to good afterwards. Your top priority would be absence of any evil. So, why have You created the universe in the first place?

 

etc.

 

I think, asking questions will not harm our faith but would prevent our faith from turning into blind faith.

 

You can't know happiness without knowing unhappiness and vice versa so we need awareness of both states to appreciate the positive state.

 

God is supreme bliss. He doesn't need to be unhappy in order to value and experience His blissfulness. I think, He was in a state of supreme bliss even before He created this universe.

 

So, why hasn't He created us in His true image so that we are able to know and appreciate happiness, without knowing and experiencing unhappiness?

I have something to ask ( though it seems foolish to me also).

 

But still.........

 

 

I have two magnets A & B.

 

I can move A or B wherever I want. Now, I bring them close and they stick to each other.

 

 

Can I say that now A & B both have more energy, as I am not able to move them?

 

If I want to move A, I have to use a lot more energy that before. Same is the case with B.

 

Thanks.

God is considered by many people as a supreme soul that is full of pure bliss.

 

My question is............

 

Isn't it immoral (or evil) for a blissful entity to create duality?

 

In other words, when a blissful entity knows that the beings I am going to create will miss this blissful state, creation of a universe itself seems to be a blunder at the least.

A person is sitting in a room. Suddenly, an urge develops in him that he should drink tea.

 

It is told that neurons in his brain direct his body to do various actions that enable him to make tea and satisfy his urge.

 

 

Who/What tells the neurons to give all these instructions?

 

Are you suggesting that matter that is chemically bonded has more mass than matter that is not chemically bonded?

 

I note that this is the classical physics forum, so Deepak are you looking for a particle physics answer or a classical answer?

 

 

Both would be great!

When I hold a ball in my hand...

 

What is it made of?

 

More of matter or more of forces? In other words what accounts for the mass of a body, the atoms, nucleons, electrons etc. or the forces that hold them together?

 

If you are proposing an alternative, I have pointed out it's arithmetical flaw since we cannot divide by zero.

 

 

 

Do you think an alternative definition for a relationship between three quantities that is undefined for two of them in certain important cases is worthwhile?

 

 

If you are proposing an alternative, I have pointed out it's arithmetical flaw since we cannot divide by zero.

 

I am a nobody to propose an alternative.

 

 

 

Do you think an alternative definition for a relationship between three quantities that is undefined for two of them in certain important cases is worthwhile?

 

Ok. I get your point. This skipped me somehow.

 

Quoted is your last statement on proportionality, followed by my reply and further explanation.

 

You have not responded to this.

 

 

I have thought long on this topic.......it's still at the back of my mind.

 

I am afraid you won't like my response...........

 

 

My response is as follows.............

 

 

I think that proportionality is the result of a choice rule......and.......choices can be many.

 

 

 

 

Further it suggests you have not bothered to work through the material I carefully spent time writing out for you.

 

You started this thread about proportionality.

 

So let us keep on topic and discuss that.

 

 

Further it suggests you have not bothered to work through the material I carefully spent time writing out for you.

 

This is a totally baseless allegation. In fact, I have gone through graphs of various kinds of equations to understand your point. ( and have understood it to quite a large extent)

 

 

 

You started this thread about proportionality.

 

I brought the other example because somehow that dealt with multiplication and not addition. (the same is the case with proportionality, it deals with multiplication and not addition)

 

Not at all so long as you have a genuine interest.

 

 

 

You are nearly there, but remember that x is the independent variable and y the dependent variable.

 

The idea is that changes in y depend upon changes in x ie they only happen because we change x.

This is because we normally know x but not y. We obtain y by calculation from the equation or formula.

 

So an expression of the type y/x or y-x contain an unknown.

 

However you are skirting around the fact that we can sometimes change things (ie find a different x) so that we can recover proportionality.

 

for example

 

The length of a stretched spring is not proportional to the force required to stretch it.

 

but

 

Another variable, the extension, e, is proportional.

If we double F we double e and so on

e=kF.

 

e, of course is the difference between the current length at force F and the original that is e = (L-L₀)

 

 

This is not a satisfactory definition of proportionality. What happens when x=0? We do not allow division by zero.

I have already given you one that works in all cases.

Use it!

 

 

Force fields do not exert forces on each other.

 

They exert forces on material objects placed in the field(s).

 

So what you are asking is how do the effects of the fields combine when they both act on the same object.

 

Do you understand this, this is essential before proceeding.?

Well........ if you say so.........it's okay.

But........

 

 

I think......the hypothetical situation should have been taken into account.

 

 

especially when.......

 

Mass can be defined as the total energy content of a body.

and

Force fields also contain energy.

 

 

Anyway, very many thanks.......for spending so much time on a curious lay man.

Does this help?

 

 

A word of friendly advice here.

I have noticed in your threads that you bring in far too many ideas far too quickly.

The result is that you confuse yourself and possibly others as well.

Further you have scattered your subject over several questions, where it is apparent that a difficulty in one also comes out in each thread.

 

Does this help?

 

A lot.... In India it is called.......... 'Saagar in a Gaagar'. Saagar=Sea , Gaagar= An earthen pot used for storing water.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A word of friendly advice here.

I have noticed in your threads that you bring in far too many ideas far too quickly.

 

The result is that you confuse yourself and possibly others as well.

Further you have scattered your subject over several questions, where it is apparent that a difficulty in one also comes out in each thread.

 

It seems to be a result of some flaw in the synaptic firing in my brain. Or it is the result of some flaw in the 'thing/phenomenon' that leads to synaptic firing. Or it is the result of some flaw in the thing/phenomenon that leads to the 'thing/phenomenon' that leads to synaptic firing. and so on................

 

Anyway, I will try to win over this...though neurologists say that we are not the originator of thoughts in our brain.

 

 

 

Now, if you don't consider it 'arguing' I have something to submit below....

 

Let y=kx, Let k=5

 

when x=1 , y=5 , y/x=5

x=2 , y=10 , y/x=5

x=3 , y=15, y/x=5

 

 

Let y=k+x Let k=5

 

when x=1 , y=6 , y-x=5

x=2 , y=7 , y-x=5

x=3 , y=8, y-x=5

 

In 1st example we have y/x = a constant.

 

In 2nd example we have y-x = a constant.

 

Why should we prefer y/x over y-x?

 

There might be many phenomenon that fall in the category of y-x=constant. So, why the second example cannot be a proportionality?

 

Does it mean that there can be no other definition of proportionality other than in which y/x is a constant?

 

 

I hope I am not annoying anyone...........

 

 

 

 

But you cannot just switch forces and masses without manipulation. If we are considering two forces that arise from gravitation we would use the vector sum of those forces. But when we calculate a single force we need to consider both masses and multiply.

 

 

 

Please consider a hypothetical phenomenon where we have two force fields A & B. (May be such examples are already there in nature)

 

Force field A exerts some kind of force on Force field B and Force field B exerts the same kind of force on Force field A.

 

 

The force reduces when we take the force fields apart either one at a time or both together. The force increases when we bring the force fields together either one at a time or both together.

 

In this case, I doubt we would multiply the two force fields as opposed to the two masses, if we were to reach at some kind of equation.

 

 

Thanking you in anticipation of your patience and effort...........

This is the force between particle 1 and 2 due to Gravity. And in this case you do multiply the masses. The gravitational attraction due to object 1 on object 2 is dependent on the mass of object 1, the mass of object 2 and the distance between them. For this to work we multiply.

 

Take some numerical examples and play with them - ignoring G and units; let's use two simple guesses at the equation

 

F=(M1m2)/r^2 or F= (M1+m2)/r^2

 

 

- we want the force to double if M1 doubles OR if m2 doubles; this is from observation and cannot be changed.

 

So put in M1=40 m2=1 and r=2 into both attempts at the equation. Then double M1 , then double m2. In the first equation the force will double each time - in the second erroneous equation it will not double.

 

I am just a curious person, nothing more...

 

 

I think when two balls collide, almost the same scenario as discussed above happens...

 

1. If we double the mass of 1st ball, its impact on the 2nd ball increases (or doubles, I don't know) .

 

2. If we double the mass of 2nd ball, its impact on the 1st ball increases. ( of course, distance is zero here).

 

 

And this fact was used in the equation that I lost (may be the equation was by some crackpot, but I just got curious.. and so drew parallel between masses and forces).

 

To my mind, the point still remains, that in the gravitation formula, if instead of masses we had forces, our treatment would have been different. We would not have multiplied the forces in question. (This is only a guess as per my limited intelligence, other intelligent minds may quantify such a hypothetical interaction where instead of two masses, we use two forces).

 

Forces - yep. Not sure what you are getting at with multiplying masses - can you give me simple concrete example.

 

Actually, I had culled a couple of equations involving collision and product of masses, but the links have been lost. I will fix it soon.

 

 

The following is the example where masses are multiplied. This is not collision but interaction between masses ( something like indirect collision).

 

F₁₂ = G

 

 

It take energy to change the speed but no energy to change the direction.

But in both cases a force has to be applied to cause this.

 

 

A ball is moving. I hit it with another very small ball at an angle so that its direction changes.

 

Isn't it the 'energy' of the small ball that has brought this change in direction?

We know the universe started at a hot dense state, but not the reason behind that beginning. Our knowledge of particle physics show us that one the of the earliest particles to drop out of thermal equilibrium is the photon however the photon needs a mean free path to be detectable.

 

It is often said that everything (time, space, matter etc.) originated with the big bang.

 

How can hotness, denseness, temperature etc. be defined at the big bang or at inflation?

 

And for that matter how can we even say that 'everything' was concentrated in a very small space before big bang? Space/concentration is not defined before big bang.