Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Astronomy and Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
A discussion on "officially called a planet"
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="russ_watters, post: 6037440, member: 142"] Current definition: [LIST] [*]orbits the sun [*]has sufficient mass to be round, or nearly round [*]is not a satellite (moon) of another object [*]has removed debris and small objects from the area around its orbit [/LIST] [URL]https://www.space.com/25986-planet-definition.html[/URL] A more specific take on the 4th criteria is that it has a mass greater than the combined mass of all objects in a similar orbit. Given the distance, I think such objects tend to have eccentric orbits and trouble clearing them. Thus I don't think they can be classified as planets. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Astronomy and Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
A discussion on "officially called a planet"
Back
Top