Quote:
Originally Posted by Kullat Nunu
Dynamics has a lot to do with the term planet. After all, planets are objects which orbit stars and don't orbit other planets. If only the roundness criterion was accepted, all large moons would have become planets.
|
Of course. What the debate came down to, when all of the rhetoric is stripped away, was formation proceses (dynamics) vs intrinsic properties (geology). I'm sure many of us who are both disappointed and annoyed with the definition approved by the IAU would be placated if we had other official planetary categories as well. By giving us a distinction between "Real Planet" vs "Large, Planety Objects That There Are Too Many Of For Some People To Take Seriously," but tacking the word Planet on for good measure, they IAU has effectively muddied their definition of "Real Planet".
I still stand by the idea that "Planet" should be based on intrinsic properties of the body, while "Dwarf", "Gas Giant", "Ice Giant", "Terrestrial", or whatever other adjective one wants to tack on could deal with the issues of dynamics. And the IAU's definition can be interpreted as doing this, or at least it could be if it didn't have the stench of "Real Planet" vs "Insignificant Ice Cube" all over it.