Understanding forced motion in space

Click For Summary
The discussion clarifies the distinction between weight and mass, particularly in the context of non-gravitational space. It emphasizes that while objects like a bowling ball and a feather have no weight in space, they still possess mass, which affects their inertia and resistance to acceleration. The analogy of throwing a bowling ball while on a skateboard illustrates that the action-reaction principle still applies, as the mass of the object influences the resulting motion. The conversation highlights that weight is irrelevant in space, but mass remains crucial for understanding motion. Ultimately, the principles of Newton's laws of motion continue to apply regardless of gravitational forces.
Greg654
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello,

Can you please explain the analogy oft quoted to explain the concept of applied motion to objects in space, which goes as follows :

1. You are standing on a skateboard or sitting in a boat floating on the water, holding a bowling ball.

2. You throw the bowling ball towards the back of the skateboard (or stern of the boat).

3. As a result of the action of throwing the heavy weight, you (and the skateboard or boat) move in the opposite direction (reaction).

However in non-gravitational space the bowling ball has no weight and is therefore equal, in terms of weight, to that of a feather on Earth.

in non gravitational space : bowling ball = feather = 0 Kg (though both objects evidently possesses very different masses)

In what way does the above analogy apply to the context of non-gravitational space in which the object being pushed has no weight ?

edit : for clarity
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Greg654 said:
In what way does the above analogy apply to non-gravitational space in which the bowling ball holds no weight and thus equals, in terms of weight, that of a feather :
It has no weight but it still has mass. Weight and mass are different things. That's why they are measured in different units: kilograms for mass and Newtons for weight. Mass is defined in terms of inertia, which is the degree of resistance to acceleration. Its definition says nothing about weight, which is to do with gravity. It is Newton's law of gravitation, not his laws of motion, that says mass also affects gravity as well as inertia.

It's important to understand that the effect of mass on weight (gravity ) and the effect on inertia are two different things. A graphic example of that is that, on the Moon, if you are dropped from a height of twenty metres, you will probably survive, but on Earth you would be killed or horribly maimed. But if you crash into a cliff while traveling at 80 kph in a vehicle, you will be killed or maimed regardless of whether on the Moon or on Earth. That's because the first experiment is driven by weight, which is the effect of mass on gravity, while the second is about inertia - the effect of mass on acceleration.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes davenn, Dale and PhanthomJay
Greg654 said:
In what way does the above analogy apply to the context of non-gravitational space in which the object being pushed has no weight ?
You can simulate what happens in space on slippery ice. The weight here is balanced by the normal force of the ice, but the inertial mass is still there, so you can push off from a massive object to propel yourself.
 
Greg654 said:
Hello,

Can you please explain the analogy oft quoted to explain the concept of applied motion to objects in space, which goes as follows :

1. You are standing on a skateboard or sitting in a boat floating on the water, holding a bowling ball.

2. You throw the bowling ball towards the back of the skateboard (or stern of the boat).

3. As a result of the action of throwing the heavy weight, you (and the skateboard or boat) move in the opposite direction (reaction).

However in non-gravitational space the bowling ball has no weight and is therefore equal, in terms of weight, to that of a feather on Earth.

in non gravitational space : bowling ball = feather = 0 Kg (though both objects evidently possesses very different masses)

In what way does the above analogy apply to the context of non-gravitational space in which the object being pushed has no weight ?

edit : for clarity

You're example must use mass, not weight. Momentum is mass x velocity. Weight is irrelevant.

If you are in space it's just as hard to throw a bowling ball as it is on Earth. In space:

Bowling ball = 3kg (or whatever it is). The same as on Earth. There is, however, no force on the ball due to gravity. It's that force that we call weight. So, weight = 0 Newtons. A Newton being the SI unit of force. The kg is the SI unit of mass.
 
[
Greg654 said:
Summary: Understanding forced motion in space

Hello,

Can you please explain the analogy oft quoted to explain the concept of applied motion to objects in space, which goes as follows :

1. You are standing on a skateboard or sitting in a boat floating on the water, holding a bowling ball.

2. You throw the bowling ball towards the back of the skateboard (or stern of the boat).

3. As a result of the action of throwing the heavy weight, you (and the skateboard or boat) move in the opposite direction (reaction).

However in non-gravitational space the bowling ball has no weight and is therefore equal, in terms of weight, to that of a feather on Earth.

in non gravitational space : bowling ball = feather = 0 Kg (though both objects evidently possesses very different masses)

In what way does the above analogy apply to the context of non-gravitational space in which the object being pushed has no weight ?

edit : for clarity
you have confused weight with mass. (they are different) the bowling ball and feather have no weight in space, but they both have mass. (bowling ball is more). so, If you go back to Newtons 2nd law, it will say, a=F/m... the acceleration of you pushing the bowling ball out the back will depend on its mass and the force applied to it and for how long.. kg is mass... Newtons are a unit measure of force.
 
For simple comparison, I think the same thought process can be followed as a block slides down a hill, - for block down hill, simple starting PE of mgh to final max KE 0.5mv^2 - comparing PE1 to max KE2 would result in finding the work friction did through the process. efficiency is just 100*KE2/PE1. If a mousetrap car travels along a flat surface, a starting PE of 0.5 k th^2 can be measured and maximum velocity of the car can also be measured. If energy efficiency is defined by...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Replies
37
Views
7K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K