In high school we were taught if the center of mass wasn’t on any mass then the center of mass was “virtual”. But yes the center of mass doesn’t have to exist on the object.
Not saying you’re wrong - you’re probably right. But as an engineer, I’ve referred to or been asked about “the center of mass” thousands of times and not once have I ever heard “virtual” used. It’s just always the center of mass - wherever that point exists in all of spacetime.
It’s weird. Did something change over the years (like using the Oxford comma or double spacing after a period?). Or is that something that’s always been a thing that I’ve never run across? Strange ;)
After doing a search online the only reference to a virtual center of mass is a StackExchange post that says it’s from a high school textbook. Must be the same one I had. Seems to be not so common of a term!
In high school we were taught if the center of mass wasn’t on any mass then the center of mass was “virtual”. But yes the center of mass doesn’t have to exist on the object.
Not saying you’re wrong - you’re probably right. But as an engineer, I’ve referred to or been asked about “the center of mass” thousands of times and not once have I ever heard “virtual” used. It’s just always the center of mass - wherever that point exists in all of spacetime.
It’s weird. Did something change over the years (like using the Oxford comma or double spacing after a period?). Or is that something that’s always been a thing that I’ve never run across? Strange ;)
After doing a search online the only reference to a virtual center of mass is a StackExchange post that says it’s from a high school textbook. Must be the same one I had. Seems to be not so common of a term!
I think the proper term would be “mathematical”, bit “virtual” gets the point across just as well in context
Spacetime?