• Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    I think “Planet” should be a gravitationally rounded mass that’s not a star anyway. Those can be divided into rocky and gaseous, and further divided by principal composition.

    Smaller than that isn’t usually worth having a name, but moons can be just as interesting as free orbiting planets.

    The distinction between minor and major planets is decently clear in our star system, but if we define it poorly it won’t help us understand other systems or why the major ones are important. It’s definitely not enough to disqualify minor planets from being full planets though. Go ahead and declare 8 major planets arbitrarily, but don’t try to justify ignoring the other few dozen planetoids poorly.

    • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      but don’t try to justify ignoring the other few dozen planetoids poorly.

      There’s 200+ kuiper belt objects that are large enough to be spherical, and most don’t have names

      • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        The barycenter of the Earth-Moon system sits well within Earth’s radius. There is no definition under which the Earth-Moon system is considered binary