Quote:
Originally Posted by kheider
Planets should either be all inclusive (ie: spherical moons should be included) or they might as well have Planets be exclusive via requiring that they clear their orbits of comparable objects.
|
I agree completely, there's no point in setting the moons aside.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kheider
And since I don't think Luna and the large Jovian moons will ever be considered real Planets I think I am ok with Pluto not be considered a real Planet.
|
The issue isn't if they are "real planets", but simply, are they planets? Why do we need the qualifier? They are not
major planets, that much is clear.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kheider
We currently define Planets and Moons by 'where they are' as much as 'what they are'.
|
And the fact that this is not done for any other primary astrophysical classification shows why it is a bad idea. Why don't we classify stars in binaries differently than single stars, even if the center of mass lies inside their companion? Because the physics isn't any different, and astronomy is anchored by physics.