Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
How about these statements:
1) "an object has an acceleration which causes the net force acting
on it"
2) "an object has a net force acting on it which causes an
acceleration."
Which one does everyone prefer?
I prefer the second. Indeed, it is at least similar to the type of
language that I regularly use, although I think I am more apt to say
things like "the net force on the object causes it to accelerate" or
"the object accelerates due to the net force acting on it."
Moreover, I like to write the second law as a = F/m when teaching
because I think it is easier for students to make sense of.
Nonetheless, I see absolutely no reason to *teach* that forces
"cause" acceleration. I don't perceive *any* advantage to doing so
and I think it has several serious disadvantages not the least of
which is that it is devoid of physical meaning. I want students to
understand that physics is about determining and making use of
relationships between measurable physical quantities, that it is not
about distinguishing "cause" from "effect." I want them to
appreciate that they may just as readily determine forces from
accelerations as vice versa.
John "Slo" Mallinckrodt