There's no analytical solution for it right now

Weight is just the force things experience towards the ground

Yes, the trick is to make some assumptions that simplify it

It turns out that if one of the bodies is really small, like a satellite compared to a moon, you can consider the gravity of the satellite to be zero

And it becomes practically identical to a 2-body problem

Remember that the oceans have much bigger masses than satellites, so they experience a much bigger force

For all i know the sun and moon do distort the orbit by a few meters, I don't know

Seems like the best thing you can do is test it yourself

If there's something you don't like about what other people have done, you can fix it

Well it's mass attracting mass remember

The more mass you have, the stronger the attraction

But with less mass comes less force

Where have you tried to observe it and failed @Rudi?

You need good precision to be able to do it properly

@jeremy It comes from measuring the angle between the sun and moon at certain times of the month and doing trig with that

Where have you specifically tried to observe it?

Do we expect to?

The force is weak and would be overpowered by friction after all

^

It's important to look at what we should expect to see before declaring that it's not there

Unless you get the precision you need to see it

Not seeing something in a place where you don't have the precision to measure it doesn't really prove anything

Oh are you talking about just measuring its angular size?

Oh that's a 3rd different thing ok

Could you explain what you're talking about a little bit more?

What result did he get?

What process?

Using parallax?

`but the process he used you would have gotten the same distance to the moon`
i guess the only way you can know that is if you take a second person and try and apply it to the moon

about 3K iirc

The atmosphere doesn't get that cold as you go up though

Well this is just full of spam now

@jeremy Do you know any other servers?

DMs?

Kinda hard to talk with a pile of gifs being spammed

Helium still has weight, a filled helium tank weighs more than an empty one

Weight is the downward force, but it becomes slightly harder to measure if there's a big upward force acting on it as well

Well the balloon filled with helium has both the mass of the balloon and helium

But filling it with helium means that the upward force of buoyancy acts on it too, so it becomes hard to measure the weight

It still has weight acting downwards, there's just a bigger force pushing it up

Well a scale just measures the force pushing down on it, if there's another force present then you won't get a good measurement

Because we don't feel speed, just acceleration

But the acceleration is actually quite small

If you try and figure it out it's actually quite reasonable

It's just a quick division but ok

wat

No, only the maths that has been shown to represent reality gets used

The whole idea of maths is that it's just a way of describing reality

Mass is not weight

They're measurements of different things

Mass is a measurement of the inertia of an object, its resistance to a change in velocity

One way to do it is by applying a known force and seeing how fast the object changes its velocity

Then you have to move it

Or figure out the mass of its components and add them up or something

There's other ways

Like putting a load of it into a gas bottle and measuring the change in weight of the bottle

Theoretical sciences still have to be tested before they get accepted

Satellites built by amateurs have been put into space

@Rudi What does the mainstream claim is the evidence for the big bang?

So they don't claim to have any evidence for it?

Life evolved from older life, not from rocks

The origin of life is irrelevant to evolution

Evolution concerns itself with how life changes, not how it originates

From older life

The source is irrelevant to the process of it changing

You can say god made the first life if you like, it doesn't affect how it changes