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]

Re: Why is it "static friction?"

In a message dated 11/13/2003 6:00:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, jsd@AV8N.COM writes:

That way of thinking anthropomorphises the force,
which is usually irrelevant and sometimes misleading.
F does not "cause" ma, and ma does not "cause" F,
for reasons discussed at (web site given)

Compare the above to the following statement extracted from the recent discussion on Newton's second law and note particularly the idea that interactions *produce* momentum changes but not the converse:

*****
* Amen, John!
* I think it needs to be emphasized that N2 is a statement about INTERACTIONS
* (Forces). It says that interactions produce momentum changes. The converse
* is dangerous: Momentum "changes" concocted by merely considering more or
* less than the mass originally under consideration are not evidence of
* interaction forces.
*
* Bob Sciamanda
* Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (Em)
*******

In this case there is a claim to a definite cause and effect. Does this contradict what you are saying?


Justin Parke
Oakland Mills High School
Columbia, MD