Submitted by Afraid_Success_4836 t3_y7ujda in space
[removed]
Submitted by Afraid_Success_4836 t3_y7ujda in space
[removed]
As an astronomer that works on planet formation, I think that ad-hoc dynamical definitions (both yours and that of the IAU) are a terrible idea and a waste of everyone's time. The names of things should tell you something about what they are:
To classify bodies around stars, you could consider the steps to forming a planet:
Therefore, based on what the bodies actually are and how they form:
I dislike the term "planetary embryo" because it implies that the body is destined to accumulate additional material and "grow up" to be a rocky planet (or something larger). That's only one of several possibilities.
Hello u/Afraid_Success_4836, your submission "My (still kinda WIP) planet definition" has been removed from r/space because:
Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please message the r/space moderators. Thank you.
Yeah. I'm just summarizing the science. The OP (and you) are invited to come up with different words. The point is that there are roughly five types of bodies that orbit a star that themselves are not a star:
The interested reader is welcome to assign them names if they wish.
My dynamical definition kinda works together with more physical definitions (based on size and composition).
[deleted] t1_iswm795 wrote
[removed]