Quote:
Originally Posted by CuddlySkyGazer
The relevant criteria is that the object 'has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape'. Not that it is 'nearly round', and not that it is round through isotropic pressure.
|
Actually, that
is a fairly good definition of isotropic pressure. After all, once you overcome rigid forces, what do you think is left? But if you are saying that you feel this should be the sole definition, then I tend to agree. Although I think differentiation might actually be better, I wouldn't split hairs about any definition that looks only at the internal physics and not the motion of the object. That's why I absolutely think that large moons should be considered planets, and I think that will be even more patently obvious when we start landing on them.