This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Barycenter (astronomy) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
"When the two bodies are of similar masses ... the barycenter will be located outside of either of them and both bodies will follow an orbit around it. This is the case for Pluto and Charon, Jupiter and the Sun..."
You are correct the Sun-Jupiter Barycenter is outside the surface of the Sun. It is about 107 % of the Sun's Radius. 63.225.17.34 ( talk) 20:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Jupiter is the Only Planet with enough mass at its distance to move that Pairs Barycenter outside the Sun's Radius. 63.225.17.34 ( talk) 20:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I think this article should be merged with center of mass. Physically this article gives no new info than center of mass. 193.52.24.125 18:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I proposed to merge Barycentric coordinates (astronomy) into Barycenter. They seem to be redundant in large parts. In addition, there is already a (generic) article Center of mass, and I find it confusing to have three different link-targets used in astronomy articles for the word "barycenter". In case I'm completely wrong about my proposal, please consider to remove the hatnotes from the articles. Thx. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 20:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
{{Under construction}}
template. -- Cheers,
Rfassbind
-talk 08:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Well, the merge is done, and that's probably a good thing in itself. Mark brings up what's really a different issue, which is "what is the right title for this article?" Perhaps that's a separate proposal that should now be considered. I don't see it affecting anything that was done in the merge. Evensteven ( talk) 04:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Please open a new section for any new proposals other than the already accomplished merger of the two articles mentioned in the first post. Thx, -- Rfassbind -talk 18:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The location of the Earth-Moon Barycenter is based on 1 Plus (the Ratio of the Mass of the Earth divided by the of the mass of the Moon), and then Multiplied by the Average distance between the two. That ratio ( to a ridiculous number of digits) is 81.30059122 . Adding 1 gives ( 1 / 82.30059122 ) X 384,401 km = 4670.695487 km ( also to a ridiculous number of digits ). Rounding would gives Earth to E-M BC = 4670.7 km and Moon to E-M BC = 379,730.3 km for a total of 384,401 km. The number ( 81.30059122 ) is gradually increasing as the Earth gains mass, very slowly, but, faster than the Moon gains mass. The change in mass, and the change in mass ratio gradually moves the Moon to a higher orbit, and the Earth to a lower orbit relative to the E-M BC. The total change is a gross increase of approximately 42.36 mm per year, but the net change is only measured at about 38.2 mm per year ( McDonald Observatory, Texas: Lunar Laser Ranging ). The difference is the net increase in the Radius of the Earth ( 4.16 +/- 0.01 mm per year ).
The change in the distance is about 1 part in 9.0888 Billion, which is 1 part in twice the age of the Earth.
The Radius of the Earth is actually about 6372.4567 Km at the tilt angle of 23.491 degrees. The 6378 is an Equatorial Radius of the Earth. If a planet had uniform density, and was a sphere, ( both are not true of the Earth ), then the equal force tilt angle would be close to 23 degrees, 19 minutes and 39.3 seconds of tilt relative to the Force applied by the Sun. This would be the tilt angle radius that would represent the mass of the Planets, which in turn would apply to the mass ratio between co-orbiting planets, and thus that ratio of r1 and R2.
A large Mass multiplied by a small radius is equal to a Large radius multiplied by a smaller mass. This determines both the Mass Ratio, and/or the distance Ratio. In the case of the Earth and Moon it is the same number ( 81.30059122 ). Most would round this to 81.3 which would change the Earth to E-M BC to 4670.72904 KM, which would still round down to 4670.7 km. 63.225.17.34 ( talk) 21:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The first figure in the article is with extremely low resolution, and I suggest to replace it with a better one. 213.8.204.61 ( talk) 08:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
To make the data useful and practical, it is necessary to have the date/time of barycentric perihelion, and the rate of apsidal precession. Otherwise it reads like a textbook on theory and it is impossible to visualise the reality of it. Bards ( talk) 13:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Barycenter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Does the semimajor axis refer to the distance between two orbiting bodies or the distance from a body to the barycenter? According to this article it is the distance from a body to the barycenter (assuming circular orbits). This is inconsistent with other wiki articles. E.g. the Moon article lists both the Earth-Moon average distance and semimajor axis as 384400 km. But according to this article, the Moon's semimajor axis should be 379730km (and the Earth's 4670km). Also wiki lists Jupiter having a semimajor axis of 7.783x108 km rather than 7.776x108 km as suggested by Patrick above. Gigarose ( talk) 11:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The Gallery's fifth image shows two bodies orbiting their common barycenter in elliptic orbits. Is that true? According to Isaac Newton's Principia (Book I Corol. 4 to the laws of motion; Sect. 1 "To find centripetal forces", Prop. 1) the orbits around a barycenter to which the common central force is directed must be circular in the absence of another force, as is correctly shown in the first four images. 84.144.158.99 ( talk) 07:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Why is Newton's theory of the common center of gravity ignored in this article? See Principia Book I Corol. IV to the laws of motion. Some statements directly oppose Newton's theory. What are the scientific basics of this article's assertions? Ed Dellian 84.170.236.180 ( talk) 10:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
mass1 / mass2 * distance * .5 = barycenter distance = distance between the centers of the 2 objects mass1 = smaller of the 2 objects mass2 = larger of the 2 objects barycenter= ration of mass between the 2 objects * distance divided ny 2 it doesn't just just looks easier to understand than the formula presented. computers can run it faster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan scott james ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The last paragraph starts with "For objects at such high eccentricity". I guess you mean "For objects with such large semi-major axes"?
The animations of various bodies rotating about their center of gravity would be improved if it were clear that the bodies are in fact rotating.
Because the bodies have no decoration but are instead a uniform color, this is not clear. One's instinctive reaction is to perceive especially the large body as simply translating in space but not rotating. In other words, it can easily be an optical illustion.
Putting some kind of (non rotationally symmetric) design or decoration on the bodies will eliminate this illusion.
I hope the original contributor can do this.
Additional comment: This subject should not be classified as astronomy: It is physics.
Very basic newtonian physics, in fact.