Comment on Say hello to Bary
bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks agono material object orbits another material object and they instead orbit their collective center of mass somewhere in space.
That’s exactly what happens. Why do you think this is incorrect?
s@piefed.world 3 weeks ago
It seems to fundamentally change what it means “to orbit” something.
As I understood the term, orbiting would be used correctly in these cases:
A lighter object orbits a heavier object, and both of their paths of motion are elliptical about their barycenter
Two objects of identical mass orbit each other, and their paths of motion are circular about their barycenter
In contrast, the image above implies the following:
A lighter object does not orbit a heavier object; they both orbit their barycenter with an elliptical path of motion
Two objects of identical mass do no orbit each other; they both orbit their barycenter with an circular path of motion
Even the Wikipedia page for barycenter, which OP linked to, opens with the following:
“the barycenter… is the center of massof two or more bodies that orbit one another and is the point about which the bodies orbit.”
Perhaps “orbit” as a verb has two meanings, depending on the specificity of the context.
bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
I guess your conclusion is right. In situations where the barycenter of two (or more) objects is not sufficiently different from the center of mass of the heaviest object, we simplify the description by assuming that the barycenter and the center of mass of the heavier object are equal.
Just because I’ve already edited it, here’s an animation of Earth orbiting the Earth–Moon barycenter:
Image
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
No, your earlier definitions are incorrect. All orbits happen around the barycenter. The only question is whether one of the bodies is large/massive enough that the barycenter is located within it
s@piefed.world 3 weeks ago
I mean, the Wikipedia page for Jupiter says “Jupiter orbits the Sun”
glitchdx@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Just because a more accurate description exists, doesn’t mean that the less accurate description is fundamentally wrong. Depending on context, the less accurate description may be perfectly suitable for the subject at hand. If your priority is to be the most correct, then by all means go ahead and use the more accurate description.
I think this logic applies to a lot of things.