Timeline for What is the cause and what is the effect in the Bernoulli effect?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 26, 2021 at 14:10 | history | edited | Neil_UK | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 299 characters in body
|
| Oct 26, 2021 at 14:04 | history | edited | Neil_UK | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 299 characters in body
|
| Oct 26, 2021 at 12:27 | history | edited | Neil_UK | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 389 characters in body
|
| Oct 26, 2021 at 7:45 | history | edited | Neil_UK | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 50 characters in body
|
| Oct 26, 2021 at 6:03 | comment | added | Neil_UK | @AndrewSteane That gravitational and electrostatic fields affect masses and charged bodies does not invalidate the observation that in the Bernoulli case, and several others mediated by the conservation of energy, 'cause' is a problematic word that doesn't help the understanding of what goes on, as if an appropriate experiment is set up, or an appropriate rhetorical viewpoint chosen, either parameter variation can apparently 'cause' the other. The hammer head does decelerate because of the force from the nail, but not to the exclusion of the accleration causing the force viewpoint. | |
| Oct 26, 2021 at 5:59 | history | edited | Neil_UK | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 178 characters in body
|
| Oct 26, 2021 at 2:50 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @AndrewSteane More than once have I had to find the object that accelerated to cause a force I did not expect. | |
| Oct 26, 2021 at 1:17 | comment | added | Andrew Steane | To find out why the hammer stops one traces the deceleration to the force, and so one must discover what gave rise to the force. Reasoning the other way does not work: e..g. if one embarks on a chain of physical reasoning beginning with "to find out why the force is acting one traces the force to the deceleration and so one must discover what gave rise to the deceleration" then one gets nowhere. | |
| Oct 26, 2021 at 1:07 | comment | added | Andrew Steane | @CortAmmon "causal phrasings" as you put it are not troublesome but cogent. The chain of inference whereby one may deduce that a force is acting does not at all imply that the cause-effect roles of force and acceleration are symmetric. The hammer head decelerates in response to a force on it arising from the interaction with the nail. To suggest that the situation is entirely symmetric on the argument that the two parts ($f$ and $a$) are simultaneous is to abandon physical insight. ... | |
| Oct 26, 2021 at 0:42 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @AndrewSteane If you insist on using causal phrasings when Neil_UK explicitly pointed out how troublesome they are, you could say that "because the electron is accelerating in the absence of a non-electrostatic force, there must be a corresponding electrostatic force." That gets close to causal phrasing. | |
| Oct 25, 2021 at 22:13 | comment | added | Andrew Steane | ok, so the electrostatic force on the electron is caused by the acceleration of the electron? | |
| Oct 25, 2021 at 21:59 | comment | added | Neil_UK | @AndrewSteane In free-fall, the apple travels in a geodesic in 4D spacetime. If its path deviates from that, like when it intersects the ground, then F=ma, and you can view either the F or the a as the cause of the other. | |
| Oct 25, 2021 at 21:05 | comment | added | Andrew Steane | so the gravitational force on the apple is caused by the acceleration of the apple? | |
| Oct 25, 2021 at 19:29 | history | edited | Neil_UK | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 144 characters in body
|
| Oct 25, 2021 at 19:17 | history | answered | Neil_UK | CC BY-SA 4.0 |