[Kryptid]

Uh, you need a source for something which is obvious?

If it's really "obvious", then you'll have no problem providing a source to back up your claim. So please do so.

[Centra (OP)]

Quote from: Halc on Today at 13:54:31
Quote
"You know a barycenter is a real thing, right?"

It's an abstract thing, and one that only applies to orbiting systems, which this isn't. For non-orbiting systems or for systems of more than two masses, it's called the center of mass (CoM), which is real only if you consider abstractions to be real. You can put a small particle near the abstract CoM and the particle will not be necessarily attracted to it, so it isn't real in that sense.

[ băr′ĭ-sĕn′tər ] The center of mass of two or more bodies, USUALLY bodies orbiting around each other, such as the Earth and the Moon

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/barycenter#:~:text=%5B%20băr′ĭ-sĕn′,the%20Earth%20and%20the%20Moon.

So much for your expertise in scientific word definitions, Halc.

Quote
"Well, if there were two unequal masses in outer space and a spring between them was released what do you think would happen? Would they both move an equal distance from the barycenter?"

The smaller mass would move at a higher speed, but not at speeds proportional to the inverse of their masses.

In the frame of the system CoM, suppose the two proper masses of 1 and 10 kg push off on each other and the 10 kg mass moves left at 30000 km/sec. The 1 kg mass will move right at about 228900 km/sec, which is not a 1-10 ratio like their masses. The rate at which either mass increases its distance from the other (the 'relative motion between masses') is about 240600 km/sec which is not the sum of 228900 and 30000. So the statement further up that you find 'obvious' is actually wrong. Don't assert intuitions. Run the numbers. Numbers don't lie.

And at the point when they were 100 m apart the 10 kg one would be 9.090909 m from the barycenter and the 1 kg one would be 90.90909 m from it, the 1 kg one having moved with a greater velocity than the 10 kg one and having moved a much greater distance than the 10 kg one, thus, they are clearly not interchangeable on a 1 to 1 basis.

[Origin]

And at the point when they were 100 m apart the 10 kg one would be 9.090909 m from the barycenter and the 1 kg one would be 90.90909 m from it, the 1 kg one having moved with a greater velocity than the 10 kg one and having moved a much greater distance than the 10 kg one, thus, they are clearly not interchangeable on a 1 to 1 basis.

You're really digging in your heels!  You are bound and determined to learn nothing.  That's fine, if believing in fantasies is what you want then knock your socks off, but I sure don't see the point in wallowing in ignorance. [shrug]

[Centra (OP)]

And at the point when they were 100 m apart the 10 kg one would be 9.090909 m from the barycenter and the 1 kg one would be 90.90909 m from it, the 1 kg one having moved with a greater velocity than the 10 kg one and having moved a much greater distance than the 10 kg one, thus, they are clearly not interchangeable on a 1 to 1 basis.

You're really digging in your heels!  You are bound and determined to learn nothing.  That's fine, if believing in fantasies is what you want then knock your socks off, but I sure don't see the point in wallowing in ignorance. [shrug]

You think I come here to learn? I know how to use Google. This is just something to do to pass the time, I don't care if you agree with what I write or not, but your snide comments sure are annoying so why don't you go annoy someone else. Actually you stay if you want because I'm not going to bother with this anymore, really not at all enjoyable so bye.

[Origin]

You think I come here to learn? I know how to use Google. This is just something to do to pass the time, I don't care if you agree with what I write or not

Just a troll.  Reported as such.

[Bored chemist]

I'm not going to bother with this anymore, really not at all enjoyable so bye.

Unless he's barred, I'd bet against him keeping that promise.

[Kryptid]

Uh, you need a source for something which is obvious?

If it's really "obvious", then you'll have no problem providing a source to back up your claim. So please do so.

So I guess you couldn't back that claim up with a source?

[Kartazion]

Here is my new and original theory, called The Illusion of Velocity Theory. One facet of the theory is that light in one inertial frame of reference cannot have true velocity in another inertial frame of reference in relative motion to it unless the source is located in one and the receptor in the other. The perception that light has velocity in the inertial frame of an observer if both the source and receptor are in another inertial frame which is in motion relative to it is an illusion, thus, the title "The Illusion of Velocity Theory". If the source is in one frame and the receptor in another in motion relative to it, velocity can only be measured if the person measuring it knows the distance and time between the two, which is rarely the case, since those parameters would be constantly changing and the observer would need to be in contact with observers in the other frame to have the information required to define the parameters, so generally any perception of velocity of light, or anything else, in one frame from another in relative motion to it is illusory.
...
...

The velocity illusion is caused by the movement of the inertial frame of reference in relation to the other frame of reference. But it is a paradox to create an illusion of velocity by a motion. No?