One can argue all one likes about what causes what, but if one uses as an example a primarily phenomenological theory, such as GR, then one is going to find it hard to answer questions about causes. Phenomenological theories describe what happens, and like Newtonian dynamics or GR tie disparate phenomena together elegantly. But they have little or nothing to say about causes.
I pointed this out before, but it didn't seem to resonate. I take it no one (else) discussing here is familiar with the literature on causation.
I looked for deeper grounds behind Wizofoz's argument about forces and mass-accelerations being the same thing. So far I have understood little more than a simple assertion of the phenomenology (with which no one at this point 350 years later can really disagree), coupled with a strong dose of operationalism to say there is nothing more than that. It beats me how one can, after embracing an argument which says they don't exist, still try to argue about causes. But then, this is PPRuNe.
PBL