Viewing last 25 versions of comment by Prof.NightJack on image #699590

"[@Keith Mowz":](/699590#comment_5827306
)  
Actully weight isn't a function of mass, it's the effect of gravity on the mass.
 
And as we can't weight the sun and the moon with how things are, we would need both effected buy somthing with with a greater gravitational pull then the sun for that, there is my statement "greater mass implies a greater weight".
 
After all if in the vacuum of space where there is no gravity, a baseball and a bowling ball have no weight at all.

"@Keith Mowz":/699590#comment_5827306
Actully weight isn't a function of mass, it's the effect of gravity on the mass.
And as we can't weight the sun and the moon with how things are, we would need both effected bu somthing with w greater gravitational pull, there is my statement "greater mass implies a greater weight".
After all if in the vacuum of space where there is no gravity, a basball and a bowlling ball have no weight at all.

"@Keith Mowz":/699590#comment_5827306
Actully weight isn't a function of mass, it's the effect of gravity on the mass.
And as we can't weight the sun and the moon with how things are, we would need both effected bu somthing with w greater gravitational pull, there is my statement "greater mass implies a greater weight".
After all if in the vacuum of space where there is no gravity, a basball and a bolling ball have no weight at all.

"@Keith Mowz":/699590#comment_5827306
Actully weight isn't a function of mass, it's the effect of gravity on the mass.
And as we can't weight the sun and the moon with how things are, we would need both effected bu somthing with w greater gravitational pull, there is my statement "greater mass implies a greater weight".