B. A. R. Ladnuop

What We Mean by Force and Pressure

Introduction

What we mean by force and pressure. Explore the scientific definitions of force and pressure, contrasting them with popular usage. Understand how scientists define pushes and pulls to move objects.

Abstract

A popular word is frequently so popular that it is received with open arms, or rather with open mouth and open ears, when really it should not be present at all in the company of those words with which it is associated on that particular occasion to form a sentence. The scientist, even when talking lightly and brightly (and even flippantly), should be very careful of the words he employs; so he likes to have all the words he intends to use regularly for scientific purposes carefully defined to have only one meaning. This article is about what we may popularly term "pushes" and "pulls" - both really quite good words, because we use them so frequently that we know what to expect when we push a thing or pull it. If you simply pull a free object, you expect generally that it will move towards you; and if you push it, you expect it to move away from you. Scientists prefer to use the word "force" when dealing with this action. We apply a force to a body, and, if the body be free to move, it will move in the direction of the force.

Review

This submission, titled "What We Mean by Force and Pressure," appears to address a fundamentally important issue in scientific communication and pedagogy: the precise definition and distinction of foundational physical concepts. The abstract highlights the critical need for scientists to employ words with singular, unambiguous meanings, contrasting this with the often-vague usage of popular language. It correctly identifies the potential for confusion when everyday terms like "pushes" and "pulls" are linked to scientific concepts, specifically introducing "force" as the scientific equivalent for these actions. However, the abstract itself suffers from several significant shortcomings that undermine its effectiveness as a summary of a scientific article. The prose is overly colloquial and verbose for a scholarly abstract, employing an informal tone ("popular word is frequently so popular that it is received with open arms," "talking lightly and brightly (and even flippantly)") that detracts from the expected academic rigor. More critically, despite the title explicitly promising a discussion of "Force and Pressure," the abstract *exclusively* focuses on "force," completely omitting any mention or discussion of "pressure." This omission creates a substantial disconnect between the stated scope of the article and its summary. For this paper to be considered for publication, a thorough revision of the abstract is essential. The revised abstract must adopt a concise, formal, and objective tone, clearly outlining the paper's central arguments, methodology, and key insights regarding *both* "force" and "pressure." It needs to articulate how the article defines these terms, distinguishes them from popular usage, and clarifies their interrelationship, if applicable. Without a comprehensive and accurate representation of the article's content, particularly its promised treatment of "pressure," it is challenging to assess the overall scientific contribution and scholarly merit of the work based on this submission.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.