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: causation



Ooops - Sorry about my last response - it suddenly occured to me that
your question was simply rhetorical. Sorry if I sounded 'preachy'.

Bob at PC

Robert Cohen wrote:

According to Bernoulli, does higher v cause a lower pressure?

(I ask this because I think it is a common question from students and=
it
illustrate a common misuse of the word "cause")

____________________________________________________
Robert Cohen; 570-422-3428; www.esu.edu/~bbq
East Stroudsburg University; E. Stroudsburg, PA 18301

-----Original Message-----
From: Forum for Physics Educators=20
[mailto:PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Tarara
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:02 AM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: causation
=20
=20
I think the view expressed by many here has not been to look=20
at F =3D ma as a cause and effect equation, but rather to=20
contend that accelerations themselves are caused by forces=20
(but forces are not caused by accelerations). The thinking=20
goes--you want an object to accelerate. How do you=20
accomplish such? You apply a net force in the direction of=20
the desired acceleration. Therefore, the acceleration can be=20
said to be caused
by the applied force(s). At least in the Newtonian scheme, all
accelerations require a net force and one or more agents that=20
provide the force(s). I push the table, it accelerates. =20
Seems like a cause and effect relationship? In what=20
scenarios (likely to be encountered in intro physics
instruction) is this not the case?