Distances in the universe

Through one rope.

Why then do not both the Earth and Moon start moving toward each other, just like in the two boats connected by a rope example?


The analogy between the two boats on a lake pulled by a rope and the Earth-Moon system is perfect.

In fact, here is modern science explaning this system:

Gravity is a force.

Gravity is directed towards the center of the orbit i.e. the sun.

That makes gravity the centripetal force.

Imagine a ball attached to a string and you are holding the other end of the string and moving your hand in such a way that the ball is in circular motion. Then tension in the string is centripetal force.

Now, ball = earth

you = sun

tension in the string = gravity


Gravity is the reason one object orbits another. An analogy is swinging a ball on a string over your head. The string is like gravity, and it keeps the ball in orbit. If you let go of the string, the ball flies away from you. (Dr. Eric Christian, April 2011)


http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4569 (UCSB Science Line)

Centrifugal force acts on a rotating object in a direction opposite the axis of rotation. Imagine that you have a tennis ball tied to a string. If you swing the tennis ball on the string around in a circle, you would feel the ball tugging on the string. That is the centrifugal force on the ball. It is counteracted by tension in the string that you are holding. In this example, the tension force in the string is like the gravitational force between the earth and the sun. The ball doesn't get closer or farther from your hand. If you suddenly cut the string, the ball would go flying away, but that wont happen to the earth because of the sun's gravity.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4583

Forces can make something move or stop something from moving. For a planet in orbit around the sun, the string is invisible. That invisible string is the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun.



Then, just like in the example with the two boats, we should see VISIBLY the Earth and the Moon move toward each other.

Precise calculations here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400


None of the RE can escape this question:

If the two boats pulling the rope do start to move toward one another, and the Earth Moon system is described as being connected by a string, as amply shown above (quotes taken from mainstream science), why do not the Earth and the Moon start to also move toward each other?

What do the other FE think of this very simple way to debunk Newtonian mechanics, the doubles forces of attractive gravitation paradox?

What is your opinion, your take, on the two boat/one rope, example?

Now, it is very easy for you to claim victory, based on a very simple situation, because the RE cannot deny that boat X will be acted upon by two separate/different forces.

FE think! "It does not compute".

Are you serious? Two separate forces of different magnitudes in the one rope is quite ridiculous!

If boat A pulls on the rope with force F_a, then the tension in the rope all along is F_a and boat B must also be pulling on the rope with F_a. It cannot be anything else.

Through one rope.

Why then do not both the Earth and Moon start moving toward each other, just like in the two boats connected by a rope example?

Because the gravitational force provides the required centripetal force to keep the moon in orbit.

If boat A pulls on the rope with force Fa, then the tension in the rope all along is Fa and boat B must also be pulling on the rope with Fa. It cannot be anything else.

Brilliant.

It is only that boat Y is pulling with force B: a force of different magnitude than force A.

They simply cannot be confused/mixed up.


Boat X will thrust forward based ON TWO FORCES.

Exactly what we see in a real life situation.

In a real life situation boat X WILL NOT MOVE forward JUST because boat Y is pulling (force B); not at all.

Boat X will also thrust forward based on a second force, the man doing the pulling on the rope with force A.

Forces A and B, are DIFFERENT, of different magnitude, they cannot be mixed with one another as the RE are obviously trying to do in order to escape the dramatic consequences: a simple two boat, one rope example will create double the forces required by Newtonian mechanics.


Why then do not both the Earth and Moon start moving toward each other, just like in the two boats connected by a rope example?

Because the gravitational force provides the required centripetal force to keep the moon in orbit.

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

Here are the precise calculations:




Just like in the example with the two boats connected by one rope, we should also see the Earth and Moon move toward each other.

What do the other FE think of this very simple way to debunk Newtonian mechanics, the doubles forces of attractive gravitation paradox?

What is your opinion, your take, on the two boats/one rope, example?

Now, it is very easy for you to claim victory, based on a very simple situation, because the RE cannot deny that boat X will be acted upon by two separate/different forces.

Again, here is your chance to claim victory, in a very easy manner.

What is your opinion on the two boats/one rope example?

My compliments to you sandokhan, with your very thoughtfull posts !!

Because the gravitational force provides the required centripetal force to keep the moon in orbit.

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

Here are the precise calculations:




Just like in the example with the two boats connected by one rope, we should also see the Earth and Moon move toward each other.

do the calculation with a ball that you spin around you,
you will see that there is only one force and not as you do that you double it, that is simply wrong.

your assumption to double the forces is wrong, every engineer knows that.

Not the same example/situation.

The boats/rafts (or the Earth/Moon pair) are free to move toward each other.

Now ask yourself this simple question.

What are the forces acting on boat X?

If you have those two boats on a lake, boats X and Y, and boat X is pulling with force A, while boat Y is pulling with force B, what forces are exerted on boat X?

Boat X WILL NOT MOVE forward JUST because boat Y is pulling (force B); not at all.

Boat X will also thrust forward based on a second force, the man doing the pulling on the rope with force A.

Not the same example/situation.

The boats/rafts (or the Earth/Moon pair) are free to move toward each other.

Now ask yourself this simple question.

What are the forces acting on boat X?

If you have those two boats on a lake, boats X and Y, and boat X is pulling with force A, while boat Y is pulling with force B, what forces are exerted on boat X?

Boat X WILL NOT MOVE forward JUST because boat Y is pulling (force B); not at all.

Boat X will also thrust forward based on a second force, the man doing the pulling on the rope with force A.

did you do this kind of experimentation where you measured the force in the rope and the force that is necessary to move a boat in water?
please provide real evidence and not only you mindplay.
because what you come up as an idea in your head is irrelevant.

You dodged the simple question.

What are the forces acting on boat X?


No mindplay.



It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.

A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.


"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.

The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."

You dodged the simple question.

What are the forces acting on boat X?


No mindplay.



It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.

A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.


"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.

The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."

the force that is acting on the boat is the force that we can measure in the rope, thats all.

and that also what your linked text says, nothing about doubling up forces

You dodged the question again.

No wonder, given the fact that the answer will defy Newtonian mechanics.

How will boat X thrust forward? Based on which forces?

What are the forces acting on boat X through the rope itself?

Does boat X move forward as if nobody is pulling there at point X with force A? Just because boat Y is pulling with force B?

And if not, it is obvious that there will be TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.

The man doing the pulling on the rope with force A, and at the same time boat X will be pulled by boat Y with force B.

That is what you see in a real life situation.

You dodged the question again.

No wonder, given the fact that the answer will defy Newtonian mechanics.

wrong

How will boat X thrust forward? Based on which forces?

it get pulled forward by the same force that is in the rope, it does not madder if the rope get pulled from the boat or from a other place (boat, ship or whatever)

What are the forces acting on boat X through the rope itself?

the force that is transferred by the rope

Does boat X move forward as if nobody is pulling there at point X with force A? Just because boat Y is pulling with force B?

if there is a pull from a outside source at the rope by the value of b the connection point at the boat has the same force

And if not, it is obvious that there will be TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.

as i said, one force

The man doing the pulling on the rope with force A, and at the same time boat X will be pulled by boat Y with force B.

That is what you see in a real life situation.

yes there is only one force pulling the boat, that is measurable in the rope.

do a real experiment.

You dodged the question for a third time.

Nor are you making yourself very well understood.


What are the forces acting on boat X through the rope itself?

Does force B exerted by boat Y equal force A exerted by boat X to start with? Are the two men doing the pulling applying the SAME FORCE, or not? And if not, do you agree that force A does not equal force B?

You dodged the question for a third time.

Nor are you making yourself very well understood.


What are the forces acting on boat X through the rope itself?

Does force B exerted by boat Y equal force A exerted by boat X to start with? Are the two men doing the pulling applying the SAME FORCE, or not? And if not, do you agree that force A does not equal force B?

force A is the same as force B because the one is the reaction force of the other.

if a man from point A is pulling with force A it does not madder if on point B is a man holding the rope with force B (=A) or it is tied to a anchor point.

basic mechanical understanding.

You haven't thought things through just like your other friends, now have you?

The two forces A and B ARE NOT EQUAL TO START WITH.

They are of DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE.

Yet you have reached the conclusion that they are equal, which they cannot be.

Proof by contradiction that your analysis is catastrophically wrong.

Something is missing.

What is missing is the fact that there ARE TWO FORCES acting on boat X.

Boat X is pulling on the rope and boat Y. The reaction force is the rope pulling on boat X, it thrusts forward. But boat Y is also pulling on boat X WITH A DIFFERENT FORCE B TO START WITH which does not equal force A.

You haven't thought things through just like your other friends, now have you?

The two forces A and B ARE NOT EQUAL TO START WITH.

They are of DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE.

Yet you have reached the conclusion that they are equal, which they cannot be.

Proof by contradiction that your analysis is catastrophically wrong.

Something is missing.

What is missing is the fact that there ARE TWO FORCES acting on boat X.

Boat X is pulling on the rope and boat Y. The reaction force is the rope pulling on boat X, it thrusts forward. But boat Y is also pulling on boat X WITH A DIFFERENT FORCE B TO START WITH which does not equal force A.

prove your claim.
do an experiment and show us the 2 different forces.

you can try to make a lot up in your mind, but if we shall believe you, you have to show real stuff.

I have just offered you a proof by contradiction that your analysis (and that of your RE friends) is catastrophically wrong.

It could not be more wrong.

Here is what you wrote.

force A is the same as force B because the one is the reaction force of the other.

But they are not equal to start with.

Boat Y will apply force B which is different than the force A applied by boat X.

They are anything but equal.


Something is missing.

What is missing is the fact that there ARE TWO FORCES acting on boat X.

I have just offered you a proof by contradiction that your analysis (and that of your RE friends) is catastrophically wrong.

It could not be more wrong.

Here is what you wrote.

force A is the same as force B because the one is the reaction force of the other.

But they are not equal to start with.

Boat Y will apply force B which is different than the force A applied by boat X.

They are anything but equal.


Something is missing.

What is missing is the fact that there ARE TWO FORCES acting on boat X.

you write they are different, but that is only what you do.
you never proven it.

if you write it or in china a bag of rice tips, its the same.

show us prove of your claim. show us the two different forces at the connection point of the rope at point A and point B.

Quote from: sandokhan on May 02, 2017, 10:42:58 AM

I have just offered you a proof by contradiction that your analysis (and that of your RE friends) is catastrophically wrong.

It could not be more wrong.

Here is what you wrote.

force A is the same as force B because the one is the reaction force of the other.

But they are not equal to start with.

Boat Y will apply force B which is different than the force A applied by boat X.

They are anything but equal.


Something is missing.

What is missing is the fact that there ARE TWO FORCES acting on boat X.

you write they are different, but that is only what you do.
you never proven it.

if you write it or in china a bag of rice tips, its the same.

show us prove of your claim. show us the two different forces at the connection point of the rope at point A and point B.

I would really like to see Sandokhan show rather than assert that Force A and Force B can be of different magnitude yet acting on the same section of rope as well, lol.  Perhaps he could reveal this wisdom in an episode of Roadrunner using ACME rope and their highly advanced Looney Tune mechanics. 

you write they are different, but that is only what you do.
you never proven it.

I would really like to see Sandokhan show rather than assert that Force A and Force B can be of different magnitude yet acting on the same section of rope as well, lol.

But I have.

Or better said, your friend jack has, in a most unfortunate way for the RE.

Here is the way with more words, formatted like you have (but with the missing details. I will even highlight them in red for you):
Boat x is pulling on the string rope with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back on boat x with force -A.

AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING on the rope WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force -B.

These are the 2 action/reaction pairs involved.
Boat x is pulling on the string, and so is boat y.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.

Thus they can be rewritten as:
Boat x is pulling on the string rope with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back on boat x with force -A.

AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING on the rope WITH FORCE -AB. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force AB.

And there we have it, 4 forces, 2 action/reaction pairs, and all perfectly balanced, all without any BS doubling of forces.

The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.

Can you point out anything wrong with that?

He explicitly says that A = B.


But the very hypothesis of the example/situation states that force A (exerted by boat X) and force B (applied by boat Y) ARE NOT EQUAL.

The men doing the pulling in the two different boats have different strenghts, the forces applied will be different in magnitude.

A does not equal B.


Yet, the "analysis" shown above signed jack (yes, you can blame him for this), says that A = B.

You have just been shown a proof by contradiction.

The supposed state of the art RE analysis of the example leads to the most disastrous contradiction possible.

Therefore, something is missing.

What is missing is the fact that there ARE TWO FORCES acting on boat X.


Remember, the analysis done above is the standard/official line. Yet, in the case of two boats pulling on a rope, it fails in a most catastrophic way.

Take a look at what jack has done:

Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force AB.

It doesn't get any better than this. He has just equated A with B, when by hypothesis A does not equal B.

…
But the very hypothesis of the example/situation states that force A (exerted by boat X) and force B (applied by boat Y) ARE NOT EQUAL.

The men doing the pulling in the two different boats have different strenghts, the forces applied will be different in magnitude.
A does not equal B.
….

JackBlack’s reasoning is correct and makes the example possible (a realistic scenario) unlike your example.

If the magnitude of A does not equal B then the example is impossible and/or you are no longer referring to what is termed a force.

If the men are of different strength then the maximum amount of pulling force on the rope will be limited by the weaker man.
 
Beyond this limit the weaker man will no longer be able to hold onto the rope (assuming he is holding it only by his hands).
 
The rope will never experience a force larger than the weaker man’s strength even though the other man would be able to pull harder if supplied with an equal reaction (ex. another man just as strong or stronger than himself). 

If the weaker man is pulling as hard as he can then the stronger man is pulling only as hard because he is providing the equal and opposite reaction to the force.

The weaker man is unable to provide the necessary reaction for a stronger force than he is able to exert.
 
At no time does the rope experience more than a single magnitude of tension simultaneously. The forces applied to the rope will be the exact same throughout and limited by the weaker man.
 
This is why your premise that Force A and Force B being of different magnitude is simply wrong and contrived. 

Wrong.

The two men are not standing on land (no friction).

Or have you forgotten that?

The two boats X and Y will start moving toward each other.


You haven't done your homework on this have you now?



The two boats will meet at some point between them.


Just like the Earth and the Moon, since the two systems are practically equivalent, as described by the quotes I provided (gravity = string).

Wrong.

The two men are not standing on land (no friction).

do you really claim that if you standing on land your feet have no friction to the ground you are standing on?

Or have you forgotten that?

The two boats X and Y will start moving toward each other.


You haven't done your homework on this have you now?



The two boats will meet at some point between them.


Just like the Earth and the Moon, since the two systems are practically equivalent, as described by the quotes I provided (gravity = string).

and that the boats meet each other in the middle even proofs that the force that is acting on each other is the same.
if you have a boat and a ship they will not meet in the middle. they will meet at a point close to the ship because the force that acting on the boat can move the light boat easier as the heavy ship.
if you would do an examination you will find out that it also will prove that the force is the same.

you have to understand that your idea in your head is wrong. test it out do some research if you do not believe people that know more about this topic than you do.
I am calculation forces on the daily basis, i am an Engineer and have to calculate lifting equipment.
And i can assure you that the formulas are all correct and work.

What is your experience with the real world, did you do even real calculations and had to test them?

Nice picking at the straws.

But these tricks do not work with me.


Your first question makes no sense at all.

No two boats can meet exactly in the middle since the force applied by the two men will necessarily be different in magnitude (just like in the Earth - Moon system).


if you would do an examination you will find out that it also will prove that the force is the same.

You have a short memory.

Your friend Jack has ALREADY done such an "examination", remember?

It leads to the most disastrous contradiction of them all.

The application of the third law is what comes into question.

There are two forces acting on boat X.


What is the net force on boat X?

What is the net force on boat Y?

Wrong.

The two men are not standing on land (no friction).

Or have you forgotten that?

Can you please show me where I implied or even suggested that two men are standing on land in this example?  A quotation would help.  Besides, I was assuming frictionless environment for the boat example although I don't see how it is relevant anyways.  Please stop trying to misunderstand me and other folks replying to you.

The two boats X and Y will start moving toward each other.

Of course they will.

You haven't done your homework on this have you now?

Sure, there is always more homework to do.  In understanding mechanics you appear to have a long way to go before catching up to other folks on this very thread.

I don't see a problem with this explanation although it isn't very explicit in talking about forces.
 
If you think it demonstrates something contrary to what I have said could you please explicitly state what you think it is? 

I don't see in any way this is saying that Force A and Force B are different in magnitude if you think it show this. 

Depending on the sizes (mass) of the boats relative to each they may accelerate at different rates due to the force exerted upon them.

The two boats will meet at some point between them.

Agreed for the boat scenario.

Just like the Earth and the Moon, since the two systems are practically equivalent, as described by the quotes I provided (gravity = string).

Wrong, the moon and earth don't meet because the moon is orbiting the earth at some orbital speed unlike the boat scenario.

Nice picking at the straws.

But these tricks do not work with me.


Your first question makes no sense at all.

No two boats can meet exactly in the middle since the force applied by the two men will necessarily be different in magnitude (just like in the Earth - Moon system).


if you would do an examination you will find out that it also will prove that the force is the same.

You have a short memory.

Your friend Jack has ALREADY done such an "examination", remember?

It leads to the most disastrous contradiction of them all.

The application of the third law is what comes into question.

There are two forces acting on boat X.


What is the net force on boat X?

What is the net force on boat Y?

nice how you avoid to mention the comment about you claim with the friction.

ok you admit that you done non real examination yourself.

first you make claims that you do not proof
that you quote something from jack, (do you now agree with jack or why do you quote him as a source for your claim)

i only take from your avoiding to do real experiments that you know that you are wrong.

how about my question about your experience with calculating forces and testing your calculations?

You do not remember the content of your own messages?

If the men are of different strength then the maximum amount of pulling force on the rope will be limited by the weaker man.
 
Beyond this limit the weaker man will no longer be able to hold onto the rope (assuming he is holding it only by his hands).

On the lake no such thing would happen.

Only on land.


I don't see in any way this is saying that Force A and Force B are different in magnitude if you think it show this. 

By hypothesis, the two forces are DIFFERENT, boat X will pull with force A which is different in magnitude than force B (applied by boat Y).

And of course you have your friend jack to thank him for his brilliant analysis where he equated A and B reaching a most stupendous contradiction.


Wrong, the moon and earth don't meet because the moon is orbiting the earth at some orbital speed unlike the boat scenario.

Not anymore.

Your friend jack, using his analysis, has managed to demonstrate that the Earth and the Moon will meet, since his equations lead to the most blatant contradiction.

By the way... here are the numbers on the Earth - Moon system.

You lose.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1905037#msg1905037


how about my question about your experience with calculating forces and testing your calculations?

I have already done my calculations.

The RE have already done their calculations: they lead to a most obvious contradiction.


TWO QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF THE RE AND FE:

What is the net force on boat X?

What is the net force on boat Y?

You do not remember the content of your own messages?

If the men are of different strength then the maximum amount of pulling force on the rope will be limited by the weaker man.
 
Beyond this limit the weaker man will no longer be able to hold onto the rope (assuming he is holding it only by his hands).

On the lake no such thing would happen.

Only on land.

also on a lake that would happen
[quote


I don't see in any way this is saying that Force A and Force B are different in magnitude if you think it show this. 

By hypothesis, the two forces are DIFFERENT, boat X will pull with force A which is different in magnitude than force B (applied by boat Y).

And of course you have your friend jack to thank him for his brilliant analysis where he equated A and B reaching a most stupendous contradiction.
[/quote]
its a hypothesis and this hypothesis is wrong
or proof the hypothesis be correct with an experiment

Wrong, the moon and earth don't meet because the moon is orbiting the earth at some orbital speed unlike the boat scenario.

Not anymore.

Your friend jack, using his analysis, has managed to demonstrate that the Earth and the Moon will meet, since his equations lead to the most blatant contradiction.

By the way... here are the numbers on the Earth - Moon system.

You lose.

the earth - moon system is not the same as a boat - ship with rope on a lake system.
the centrifugal force is not taken in account.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1905037#msg1905037


how about my question about your experience with calculating forces and testing your calculations?

I have already done my calculations.

The RE have already done their calculations: they lead to a most obvious contradiction.


TWO QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF THE RE AND FE:

What is the net force on boat X?

What is the net force on boat Y?

i say the same force.
now it up to you to proof me wrong with an experiment.
if you are really believe in your claim than do the test.

i bet you will not do it.