A question I had was the size of one's muscle. Does the size determine or help you in strength? Is size an important aspect in strength or is just for looks?

Tricky question. Muscles will grow in size from being worked, getting stronger and bigger as a result. So, yes, it can help. But how much help it will be is limited by one's ability to coordinate the various muscle groups. This is why you sometimes see smaller, less muscular people that are "stronger" than bigger folk - because they know how to use all of their muscle efficiently.

Not a black and white question, unfortunately.

your muscles grow by two processes: sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and myofibrilliar hypertrophy.
sarcoplasmic hypertrophy means that you gain, because your body deposits more fluid _between_ your muscle fibres (for improved nuorishment and cleansing of lactic acid).
myofibrilliar hypertrophy on the other hand, that you gain, because the muscle fibres themselves increase in diameter, adding to their maximal strength.
note that it is way harder to achieve the same growth by myofibrillar than by sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the former happening slower.

as MattJ pointed out, your effective strength is mostly limited by your ability to "activate" your muscles via your nervous system. pavel tsatsouline has it that in cases of lightnings striking people tendons were ripped off the bones by the externally fully activated muscles. if this has really happened you should worry about your nervous system for strength, about your muscles for endurance and asthetics.

tsatsouline has an approach to training i find quite agreeable, i suggest you try to find some of his books("power to the people" and maybe "the naked warrior") to learn more about things like irradiation, internal pressure and the like.