he parachutist jumps from the airplane at ten thousand feet and plummets to earth at the speed of acceleration due to gravity.
What’s causing precise acceleration? — ucarr
We see now that cause and effect the logical conjunction: a⇒b morphs into
a⇒b−t⇒a⇔bn. — ucarr
The falling parachutist does not fall at a rate determined purely by gravity - air resistance must be taken into account and this slows the fall. Such an effect is frequently calculated as proportional to the square of the velocity when close to the ground... — jgill
We see how cause and effect the logical conjunction evolves:
— ucarr
Well, at least you get a minimum of one reply this time around. :cool: — jgill
We know man in a weightless chamber doesn’t cause acceleration, not even when he jumps. — ucarr
Gravity and acceleration-due-to-gravity are, in a certain sense, as one. They are conjoined as a unified concept: gravity-and-acceleration. Thus cause and effect are, in the same sense, as one, save one stipulation: temporal sequencing. — ucarr
Here's another thing to add to what jgill said. I think that jumping, or more correctly pushing off, in a gravity-free space, actually would cause acceleration. — Metaphysician Undercover
Gravity and acceleration-due-to-gravity are, in a certain sense, as one. They are conjoined as a unified concept: gravity-and-acceleration. Thus cause and effect are, in the same sense, as one, save one stipulation: temporal sequencing. — ucarr
Acceleration only occurs from the effects of gravitation when whatever is preventing acceleration is removed, or if an object is suddenly exposed to gravitation. — Metaphysician Undercover
...in that series of events that's referenced in the O.P., neither cause nor effect is demonstrable, but only temporal predecessors & successors. — ItIsWhatItIs
A mere series of events can never constitute a causal relationship. The frames within a film strip precede & succeed each but aren't either the causes or effects of one another. — ItIsWhatItIs
↪ucarr
I don't see what "time" and "cause & effect" have to do with one another. IIRC, the equations of QFT lack time variables — 180 Proof
I don't see what "time" and "cause & effect" have to do with one another. IIRC, the equations of QFT lack time variables — 180 Proof
A good point. However, much of Q-theory presupposes spacetime in one or another metric framework. When you see d^4 in a formula that probably indicates space and time. — jgill
A causal change in V is the result of draining the liquid to a lower value of h. dV/dh =A, which gives a change of V corresponding to a change of h. No time is involved in the equation, only change. But if h=h(t), then dV/dt=(dh/dt)A, and we have change associated with a passage of time. — jgill
No time is involved in the equation, only change. — jgill
Is this an example of the difference between an abstract idea (equation) and its everyday expression as a physical event? — ucarr
Are you guys telling me time and cause and effect are either: a) separable; b) separate? — ucarr
With respect to contemporary fundamental physics, I don't see what one has to do with the other. Even in Kant, these concepts are not directly related. — 180 Proof
Do you buy the notion gravity-and-acceleration are a unified concept within a restricted domain: — ucarr
Not really, because acceleration can be caused by things other than gravity. So for example, a rocket blasts off and it accelerates in breaking away from gravity, as a sort of reverse relation to gravity. There is still a relation with gravity involved here, but since it is a reversal, we see that it is not a direct relation because there must be something else involved. Since there is something else involve we can't restrict the domain. — Metaphysician Undercover
Likewise, with your example of the parachutist. You refer to the effects after jumping, as "acceleration". But what is required prior to this, and is a necessary condition, is that the person takes off in a plane (gravity reversal), and then jumps from the plane. That particular prior condition is the one required for your specific description, but it could be replaced with all sorts of others. So even the prior condition is not in the strict sense "necessary", but there is a whole class of possible prior conditions. But since one of these many possible conditions is necessary, for the acceleration described, we cannot restrict the domain in the way you propose. — Metaphysician Undercover
One can say that footprints are caused by feet, or that they are caused by gravity, or both. Or one could talk about the relative hardness and resilience of feet and wet sand... But physicists talk more about interaction and the limits of interaction being the light cone. An interaction changes two things at once - an atom absorbs a photon and its energy is increased. one does not wish to say that the photon caused the increase in energy more so than the atom caused the absorption of the photon - it is a single event - a single interaction, and the observation thereof is another interaction. — unenlightened
And then there is the matter of origins: we extrapolate the expanding observable universe backwards in time and come to a singularity, that we call the Big Bang - the beginning of space, time, and energy. And because of the physicists demand that cause must precede effect in time, there can be no cause of the beginning. The story has to stop at the limits of the equations. To speak of a cause of time and space in this sense is to reject the physicists meaning such as it is, and resort to Prime Mover type talk. — unenlightened
Maybe I'm just missing the point of your post, ucarr. — 180 Proof
I'm getting the impression post-Newtonian physics is moving away from temporal cause and effect towards atemporal cause and effect. — ucarr
I don't know what atemporal cause and effect would be. — unenlightened
An interaction changes two things at once - an atom absorbs a photon and its energy is increased. one does not wish to say that the photon caused the increase in energy more so than the atom caused the absorption of the photon - it is a single event - a single interaction, and the observation thereof is another interaction. — unenlightened
One can say that footprints are caused by feet, or that they are caused by gravity, or both. Or one could talk about the relative hardness and resilience of feet and wet sand... But physicists talk more about interaction and the limits of interaction being the light cone. An interaction changes two things at once - an atom absorbs a photon and its energy is increased. one does not wish to say that the photon caused the increase in energy more so than the atom caused the absorption of the photon - it is a single event - a single interaction, and the observation thereof is another interaction.
And then there is the matter of origins: we extrapolate the expanding observable universe backwards in time and come to a singularity, that we call the Big Bang - the beginning of space, time, and energy. And because of the physicists demand that cause must precede effect in time, there can be no cause of the beginning. The story has to stop at the limits of the equations. To speak of a cause of time and space in this sense is to reject the physicists meaning such as it is, and resort to Prime Mover type talk.
But then the temporal aspect is there, but the thing is contrived. — unenlightened
I would caution against any model where time "flows." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Time is the dimension in which change occurs. Without
time change is meaningless. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Time is the dimension in which change occurs. Without time change is meaningless. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Some philosophers have bitten the bullet and accepted either the non-existence of time, change, and motion based on this problem, or infinitely regressing time dimensions, but there is actually no need to do this. I would recommend R.T.W. Arthur's "The Reality of Time Flow - Local Becoming in Modern Physics," on this point. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Gravity is causing precise acceleration. — ucarr
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.