I don't think the definition of a planet matters. At the specific level we commonly think of, all we need to know is whether something orbits the sun and not something orbiting something orbiting the sun.
Then we can pair it up with the earth. The moon wouldn't meet this definition.
What does the dude from Exosquad have to do with anything?
Personally, I'd define a planet as an object big enough to retain an atmosphere, but not so big it starts nuclear fusion in its core.
Who? What?
Phaeton is the broken planet between mars and Jupiter... you probably know it by its lesser name... the inner Asteroid Belt
yeah a small planet which is actually smaller than our moon and over half of its mass its ice so that if it were closer to the sun it will melt away and create a tail
doesnt sound like a planet to me
Who? What?
Phaeton is the broken planet between mars and Jupiter... you probably know it by its lesser name... the inner Asteroid Belt
If .99999999=1 then Pluto is a planet.
The problem with designating Pluto as a real planet is that you have to add a few more, like Eris and Ceres. It makes a lot more sense to just remove Pluto.
If Pluto is a planet then so are Ceres (in the asteroid belt), Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, Eris, 2007 OR10, Sedna, Quaoar, Orcus, and probably many other undiscovered "dwarf planets".
Personally, I'd define a planet as an object big enough to retain an atmosphere, but not so big it starts nuclear fusion in its core. Which would rule out Mercury as well. :sneaky:
Posted from the second planet in a system of seven.![]()
The asteroid belt was never ever a planet. Phaeton is an asteroid in the belt.
Negative... The greeks have evidence it was a planet and Plato himself said its destruction resulted in the sinking of atlantis.
Negative... The greeks have evidence it was a planet and Plato himself said its destruction resulted in the sinking of atlantis.
