Is the Earth-Moon System a Double Planet or Planet and Satellite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jbar18
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Moons Planets
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the classification of celestial bodies, specifically whether the Earth-Moon system should be considered a double planet or a planet and its satellite. Participants highlight that moons orbit planets, while both planets and moons orbit their common center of mass, or barycenter. A proposed distinction is that if the barycenter lies outside one of the objects, they could be classified as a double planet. The IAU defines only eight planets in the universe, with other orbiting bodies categorized as exoplanets. Ultimately, the Earth-Moon system will remain classified as a planet and satellite due to the barycenter's position.
jbar18
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I was just wondering whether there is a proper difference between a moon and a planet. The only answer I've been able to find is that moons orbit planets, and planets orbit stars. But in reality, planets and moons both orbit their common centre of mass. So to frame my question clearly, would it be a planet with a moon if they were the same mass? Would they both be planets, both be moons or what? Kind of a pedantic question perhaps, but I couldn't find a clear answer.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
There is no clear definition. A possible distinction can be done based on the barycenter (the center of mass in the system): if it is within one object, you could call it planet and moon, otherwise it is more like a double planet.

With that definition, pluto and charon are a double-minor planet (or double-minor planets?), and all 8 planets in our solar system are planets - even Earth with its very large and distant moon.
 
mfb said:
There is no clear definition. A possible distinction can be done based on the barycenter (the center of mass in the system): if it is within one object, you could call it planet and moon, otherwise it is more like a double planet.
That is precisely the definition. It's important to remember that there are but eight planets in the entire universe per the IAU definition of the term "planet". Those things that orbit other stars: They aren't "planets". They're exoplanets.
 
D H said:
That is precisely the definition. It's important to remember that there are but eight planets in the entire universe per the IAU definition of the term "planet". Those things that orbit other stars: They aren't "planets". They're exoplanets.

Yes, but that's only from OUR frame of reference. From THEIR frame of reference, we are the exoplanets :smile:
 
D H said:
That is precisely the definition. It's important to remember that there are but eight planets in the entire universe per the IAU definition of the term "planet". Those things that orbit other stars: They aren't "planets". They're exoplanets.
For our solar system alone, such a rule is not necessary - the earth/moon system will stay planet&moon anyway (try to change that :D), and all other planets have a huge mass difference between planets and moons as Pluto is not a planet any more.

It will get more interesting for exoplanets as soon as exomoons are discovered.
 
mfb said:
For our solar system alone, such a rule is not necessary - the earth/moon system will stay planet&moon anyway (try to change that :D), and all other planets have a huge mass difference between planets and moons as Pluto is not a planet any more.
A rule is necessary. Is the Earth-Moon system a planet and satellite, or is it a double planet system? The IAU definition of a satellite is what says that the former is the case.

The Moon may eventually recede to the point where the Earth becomes tidally locked to the Moon. At this point, will our Moon have become something other than a moon? (i.e., will the barycenter eventually migrate to being outside the Earth?) The answer is no because tidal locking will occur when the Moon recedes by another 35%. The barycenter will remain inside the Earth.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top