Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 3022693" data-attributes="member: 177">Who said that classifying a thing as a "planet" meant it was fundamentally different from all  other classes?  Quite the contrary - most planets also fit into other classes.  Some planets are gas giants.  Others are rocky worlds.  Why not have a dirty iceball planet?Accidents of placement should not be overlooked - the Jovian moons are going to remain classified as satellites, though in size and structure many of them are very planet-like.  The difference is only accident of placement.But, to handle exactly your problem, the official category of "plutons" is part of the new definition.But "planet" never officially referred to any of those things anyway, so I don't see the problem.   A couple of things you mention - like rotational characteristics and composition - I don't feel have anything to do with the characterization as a planet.  When Earth, tiny resonant and eccentric Mercury, and sideways gas giant Uranus are all covered by the definition "planet", the definition has to be rather broad.That an object has enough mass that gravitation overcomes rigid-body forces so it can come to a form of hydrostatic equilibrium (and thus be round) says some significant things about the object.  I think Ceres is a very good illustration of the fact that any definition clear enough to be useful will have annoying edge cases.  The Universe is only occasionally digital - it will create a continuum of objects no matter how finely we decide to split hairs between distinct classes.  No matter what the definition, we can find or imagine a case that will be troublesome.  So, I'm not too concerned about it.</blockquote>

Verification