Viewing last 25 versions of post by Barhandar in topic Useless Facts

"[@UrbanMysticDee":](/forums/dis/topics/useless-facts?post_id=23049#post_23049
)  
The problem with that is it dilutes the definition of a "planet". It's not _*useful_* to count hundreds of satellite-sized chunks of of rock that floated from somewhere the same as eight much larger chunks of rock (and in four cases, gas) that have formed from accretion disk.
 
Basically, defining them all as a "planet" hits the same _*linguistic_* snag as calling them "dwarf planets", just from the opposite side - they're not useful as planets, so calling them either "planet" or "planet but with a qualifier that SOMEHOW makes it not a planet" is wrong.


 
Also, a much more useful qualifier of a planet, instead of "clearing neighbourhood", is its orbit having low eccentricity and lying within plane of ecliptic (i.e. having formed from accretion disk) and exoplanet consequently something that would be a planet if its orbit was in ecliptic and circular but isn't, as opposed to being "outside solar system" (heliocentrism, modern edition) - "exo" both because it's what would happen if a rogue planet (same thing but in galactic orbit instead of stellar) was captured by gravity well of a star, and because they're outside the ecliptic. Also results in eight actual planets, but turns Pluto and the rest into exoplanets instead of "SMALL PLANET THAT IS TOTALLY NOT PLANET WE R ABSOLUTELY SMURT GUIZE".

"@UrbanMysticDee":/forums/dis/topics/useless-facts?post_id=23049#post_23049
The problem with that is it dilutes the definition of a "planet". It's not _useful_ to count hundreds of satellite-sized chunks of of rock that floated from somewhere the same as eight much larger chunks of rock (and in four cases, gas) that have formed from accretion disk.
Basically, defining them all as a "planet" hits the same _linguistic_ snag as calling them "dwarf planets", just from the opposite side - they're not useful as planets, so calling them either "planet" or "planet but with a qualifier" is wrong.

Also, a much more useful dequalifinitioner of a planet, instead of "clearing neighbourhood", is its orbit having low eccentricity and lying within plane of ecliptic (i.e. having formed from accretion disk) and exoplanet consequently something that would be a planet if its orbit was in ecliptic and circular but isn't, as opposed to being "outside solar system" (heliocentrism, modern edition) - "exo" both because it's what would happen if a rogue planet (same thing but in galactic orbit instead of stellar) was captured by gravity well of a star, and because they're outside the ecliptic. Also results in eight actual planets, but turns Pluto and the rest into exoplanets instead of "SMALL PLANET THAT IS TOTALLY NOT PLANET WE R ABSOLUTELY SMURT GUIZE".