I know two bodies orbiting each other are considered planet + moon if the center of gravity is inside one of the objects, which becomes the planet. However, isn't this definition rather arbitrary? Is there a logical reason for saying the center of gravity has to be inside one of the orbiting bodies, or were astronomers saying, "Look, we have to draw the line somewhere, so this is where we'll draw it"?
Also, based on this definition, how close are the Earth and the Moon to being binary planets? Considering the size of the moon relative to the Earth, while the center of gravity may still be inside the Earth, it must be pretty close to the surface.
2006-09-25
13:21:21
·
6 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Science & Mathematics
➔ Astronomy & Space
I'll give enuf the 10 points for the reference with the interesting graphic. As for the answers, none of them convince me this definition still isn't arbitrary - if the center of gravity is inside the larger object, the "planet" will still appear to wobble in a tight circle.
In the Earth/Moon system, it occurred to me that finding the center of gravity is possible if I know the weight of the moon. So, checking Wikipedia, I see the moon is .0123 earth masses. Factor in its 240,000 distance from the Earth, and the center of gravity of the Earth/Moon system is about 3,000 miles from the Earth's center, or about 1,000 miles from the Earth's surface. That ought to produce a measurable wobble to an observer on Mars with really good equipment. Also, I figure if the moon were about 325,000 miles away, Earth/Moon would now qualify as a binary planet system.
2006-09-26
02:38:43 ·
update #1