As rightly said by Anastas Ivanov Ivanov weight of a body depends on gravity and mass or matter contained in a body does not depend on gravity. Moon has less gravity than earth around 1/6th or 1/8th. Moon is in space. Like wise earth is also in space and strictly in universe. On earth there is gravity, but in space this is relative with other planets and thus revolving around sun.

Gravity of Earth is in explicit domain and Earth is a part of solar system.

Space has infinite boundaries hence question is not clear

When you are in space, away from Earth, objects do not weight anything since they do not feel gravitational attraction to the Earth.

In space it is zero,

Earth is attached with the sun due its mass. With respect to sun, it must has weight. We have weight due earth, that keep us attached with the earth.

I agree with you

The earth has mass and weight. Its weight is its gravitational force mostly in the the gravitational field of sun. The earth is orbiting in a specific circular path because it is subjected to effect of two forces the gravitational force of sun and the centrifugal force. Therefore it is swimming in the orbit as there is force balance perpendicular to its path. And this is the interpretation of the Koraan about the swimming of earth in its orbit.

Best wishes

I have no idea about ,actual I never think about it

The Earth is constantly falling towards the Sun and this is caused by gravitational pull. As long as all mass is not in one point there will be some gravitational effect that is not equal to zero. Some events (colliding black holes ...) may create an observable gravitational wave. Actually this reminds of the possibility to observe gravitational waves instead of light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves

the language of universe is duality, everything inside of the Universe is following this phenomenon. Everything in the Universe is moving, by rotation, where this motivation is coming from? from the Universe's rotation! the rotation of galaxies are opposite direction of universe, therefore everything in a galaxy is weightless, but it is carrying their mass. https://www.academia.edu/38373675/Creation_of_a_Quantum_Mechanic_Universe_and_its_Rotation.doc Best regard.

I think the conflict is coming from the definition of weight. The weight of a mass m= m g, where g is the gravitational acceleration in the position of the mass.

Let assume that the earth is not revolving around the sun, for sure it will fall on the sun which proves that there is gravitational pull from the sun on the earth.

The rotational velocity of the earth is most probable gained as an initial velocity coming from the great bang. If the sun pull to the earth ceases the earth will move in a straight line.

Best wishes

Hi dear Abdelhalim, You right, they thought mass is lees than weight, because of gravity. this articles made me to be invited to 2019 Quantum Physics https://www.academia.edu/37525574/Quantum_Mechanic_Gravity Sun can not have pulling gravity, because any mass would kill the sun. The rotation of earth is not a mechanical phenomenon, if it was mechanical and pull by gravity, it would not going for same speed for billion of years. Let me know, your feedback is important to us, best regard

Zero in space

Weight is zero

Yes I think that the weight of earth in space is equal to zero because there is no gravity .

http://www.ecology.com/2008/09/08/how-much-does-earth-weigh/

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/150-people-in-astronomy/space-exploration-and-astronauts/general-questions/933-how-do-we-weigh-objects-in-space-beginner

I believe the Big Bang theory confused everyone, because it is introducing a mechanical universe, while the Universe is a complete entity. The rotation of QM Universe is making everything weightless, but still they are carrying their mass. https://www.academia.edu/38373675/Creation_of_a_Quantum_Mechanic_Universe_and_its_Rotation.doc best regard to all PS: this theory I am going to present to Quantum Physics 2019 in France and Japan.

The universe is a complete entity but it is composed of components. These components are the orbiting and running masses. The newtons gravitational law is valid for all masses. Which means that that every mass has potential energy field. This field is the gravitational field. If there is conflict between the quantum mechanics and the Newtons mechanics concerning the movement of masses in the space, then one has to investigate the origin of this conflict.

In the atom the quantum mechanics do not negate the existence of the electrostatic potential field. Still one solves for the motion of the electrons inside the atom under the effect of the potential field of nucleus. Similarly one can not negate the existence of the gravitational field when solving for the motion of the masses in the masses in the space under the effect of the other masses.

If the masses do not have potential field then how it comes to the space division principles of masses in the space.

I think the conflict may come from local and global observations. When we speak of earth in the sun gravitation field, this is a local observation. When looking at the whole universe as single entity, the masses may behave in a collective manner.

I do not have sense a bout this global quantum mechanical model.

I want to give an example from electrical activity point of view, it is so that the whole body is electrically neutral . but when we see it microscopically we see that the the positive and negative charges are separated in every atom.

The global neutrality of the whole body does not negate the the presence of regions which positively charged and the other are negatively charges.

I would like to thank you that you invite me to share in this debatable object.

For me i believe firmly on the validity of the Newtons gravitational law for describing the motion of the earth in the solar system.

Best wishes

Dear Abdelhalim, you contributed great deal of knowledge to my thought. The Quantum Mechanics universe is consist of two kind of mass, chemical mass, and non-chemical mass. The non-chemical mass has no potential energy field, but the atomic mass has the potential energy field. This energy field is not mechanical field that we call it gravitational field (as you mention). It is awareness field of QM field, because of any constituent elementary particle is panpsychist i.e. we are observing abundance of H, O, C, in space of universe separately. This remark doe not match with newton law of Gravity, but it match with awareness of atom. Unfortunately we think there is electromagnetic field exist in atom, this wrong perception is working in hydrogen, but when it goes to He, and heavier it become theory. I my challenge is two things, 1) gravity is smart, exist inside of all atom and molecules. 2) space of atom should consider as intelligent element of atom.

If we are smart, atom is smart. Furthermore Space of Universe is smart as well, Article Quantum Intelligent Space

Weight is 0 because we do not feel the gravitation attraction to the earth.

Weight is zero

Very interesting discussion

In sending satellites or space vehicles to the space Newtons mechanics is used to describe the motion of these vehicles in addition to his gravitaional law. No failure of such laws is found.

It is so that if the existing laws fail in describing the observed behavior of the objects one has to make his mind.

Classical mechanics result on continuous change of momentum and energy of a moving object in space. Quantum mechanics result in discretization of these quantities. This led to the concept of space division in the sense of the existence of unique orbitals for the moving particles.

One great difference between the gravitational field and the electrostatic field is that electrostatic field is due to separate positive and negative charges and the electromagnetic activity of the accelerating charged particles such as electrons. So, this is the cause of failure of the classical mechanics on the electrons in atoms and the failure of the Rutherford atomic model which was similar to the sun system.

Consequently the earth when orbiting does not emit radiation and will not loose energy when it is moving in the space. That is in its movement the earth will preserve its kinetic energy forever. It moves in free space and it will not intrinsically radiate. Consequently there is no problem with its state preservation forever.

Best wishes

The gravitational field is a potential energy field. It is the gravitational force field where the masses attract each other. When a mass exists in the gravitational field of an other mass it will be subjected a pull force. This is the direct consequence of the Newton gravitational law.

It is so that we observe the orbiting motion of the earth for example. We understand that there is a pull force between the earth and the sun. So, the earth must move in a circular path around the sun to avoid falling om it. From where comes this kinetic energy of the earth for moving in its orbit?

i think that neither quantum mechanics nor classical mechanics can tell us from where this kinetic energy came.

On other side in order to make satellites revolve around the earth they must be given a specific tangential velocity to its orbit.

So, by analogy what gave velocity to earth in its orbit?

Thank you for your complementing me.

Best wishes

Weight , mass, time … etc. depend on the reference at which the quantity is measured.

Abdelhalim Zekry

For the earth-moon system, I know that the moon is braking earth's rotation and earth is braking the moon (resulting in the distance earth-moon increasing over time).

In analogy, the sun has to have some rotation(al energy), which is - ever so slightly - used up to keep the earth (and the other planets) on its (their) orbit(s). Furthering the analogy, the earth's orbit has to widen over time.

While the earth-moon system is comparably easy to measure, I expect the effects between earth and sun to be significantly lower, thus harder to measure. (In addition: how do you measure the distance to a "ball of gas" ?)

As to the original question: no, the weight of earth is non-zero. Although I cannot tell how high it is.

It is really interesting topic to be discussed, I think we should come back to the relativity theory.

If weight of the earth is Zero, why not to pick it and place it at a distance from the sun?

interesting question.............. Following

Very useful information and discussion!

Rafid A. Abdullah

I don't thing we'll need the relativity theory - classical celestial mechanics should do (at least for - somewhat simplified - 2-body orbits):

• the force that's keeping any satellite in its orbit is . . . surprise, surprise! . . . its weight (force).

Just that simple. Now you can start cutting in with a number of approaches - including some momentum calculations - taking into account earth's mass, orbital radius, and the angular change of the momentum vector - effected by its weight (force).

...

I do not believe our sun has any pulling gravity, because we never observed any pulling force from sun, as matter fact, sun is rejecting object as they reach to sun. Therefore sun has negative gravitation. for more detail https://www.academia.edu/37998115/The_Formation_of_a_Quantum_Mechanic_Sun Best regard

Space also has some weight for earth otherwise solar system orbits not possible

Mass of earth is relative to sun,moon. Absolute mass is provided by the following metric .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeris

Wieght may be zero if the net force due to all other surrounding masses of Earth, like moon, planets, sun, starts etc, is zero, but, it's mass is not zero.