Effect of water displacement on gravitation pull between ships

AI Thread Summary
The gravitational attraction between two large oil tankers, calculated using Newton's formula, is 1,331 lb when they are touching. The discussion centers on whether the water displaced by the ships affects the gravitational force felt when trying to hold them apart. It is concluded that the displaced water does not create lateral forces between the ships, as they are effectively balanced by the ships' masses. Theoretical calculations remain consistent regardless of whether the ships are in water or on a frictionless surface. The conversation also explores the concept of gravitational interactions related to hypothetical "holes" in the water, ultimately affirming that these would not repel but rather attract each other.
jims
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I calculated, using Newton's formula F = GmM/r^2, that the gravitational attraction between two large, full oil tankers whose sides are touching would be 1,331 lb., given the mass of each ship as 6.5 x 10^8 kg, distance between their CG's of 69 m, G = 6.674 x 10^-11 N(m/kg)^2, and 1 N = 0.2248 lb.

The question is this: Does the water displaced by the two ships add, subtract, or have no effect on the force I feel if I am trying to hold the ships apart? and why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Compared to what? It's a little like asking if the number 5 is happy.

If the water were instead inside the ships and they were just barely afloat, you can recalculate a larger attraction. If you calculate the attraction with the ships out of the water on an ideal frictionless surface you'll get your same answer. If they are on a typical real world surface with friction you'd measure no attraction but maybe calculate the same theoretical figure as you did because they'd be stuck in place on a dock or other surface.

It would be better to think of your question with the ships empty or less full...or refilled with a liquid of different density...then you can easily answer your own question.
 
Naty1 said:
Compared to what? It's a little like asking if the number 5 is happy.
...
If you calculate the attraction with the ships out of the water on an ideal frictionless surface you'll get your same answer...

Sorry if my question seemed trivial. At first I thought that the "holes in the water" formerly occupied by the displaced water might be modeled as having a gravitational repulsion to each other, due to all the surrounding water's gravitational attraction to itself. But each hole actually has a ship of the same mass sitting in it. So there is no lateral pull on the water and no lateral pull of the water on the ships. Thanks for your help.
 
jims said:
Sorry if my question seemed trivial. At first I thought that the "holes in the water" formerly occupied by the displaced water might be modeled as having a gravitational repulsion to each other, due to all the surrounding water's gravitational attraction to itself. But each hole actually has a ship of the same mass sitting in it.

Even if the holes were not filled, they would rather attract than repulse each other.
 
A.T. said:
Even if the holes were not filled, they would rather attract than repulse each other.

Nice thought! I enjoy wondering about holes in the water. Not sure, but I think the holes might repel. Check out this hand-waving:)

Think of a volume of ocean with motionless water.

At a given depth beneath the surface, we make appear two ideal spheres. Since these perfectly massless, rigid, and watertight spheres have ideally thin walls, no water has yet been disturbed.

Since gravity is universal, the water inside one sphere is attracted to the water inside the other sphere with a force given by Newton’s F = GmM/r^2. But the spheres remain motionless because of offsetting forces of gravity from the surrounding environment.

Next we tie each sphere to the ocean bottom, using ideally strong, thin, and massless ropes. Each rope is attached in its line between its sphere’s water’s center of mass (CM) and the earth’s CM.

Then we make the water inside the spheres disappear, creating two holes in the water of mass zero, thereby removing the earlier mentioned force of attraction.

Absent this force of attraction, I think the holes would be pulled apart by the “forces of gravity from the surrounding environment” mentioned earlier. When the system again comes to rest, I think each rope would be pulling against an upward buoyancy vector plus a smaller lateral vector of f = GmM/R^2, where R > r.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top