Comment on Why are dwarf planets not considered planets but dwarf stars are considered stars?

brucethemoose@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

Its semantics, and a subject of ongoing debate.

Per wikipedia, I really like this proposal:

Astronomer Jean-Luc Margot proposed a mathematical criterion that determines whether an object can clear its orbit during the lifetime of its host star, based on the mass of the planet, its semimajor axis, and the mass of its host star.[210] The formula produces a value called π that is greater than 1 for planets.[c] The eight known planets and all known exoplanets have π values above 100, while Ceres, Pluto, and Eris have π values of 0.1, or less. Objects with π values of 1 or more are expected to be approximately spherical, so that objects that fulfill the orbital-zone clearance requirement around Sun-like stars will also fulfill the roundness requirement[211] – though this may not be the case around very low-mass stars.

I like this proposal. It basically means a planet should be big enough to consolidate all the stuff in its orbital area, not be part of an asteroid field.

source
Sort:hotnewtop