4 ms·

Natural satellite == moon. "Natural satellite" is a subset of "satellite", thus what you'd call them is correct by definition. Let's let the astronomers with c

Natural satellite == moon. "Natural satellite" is a subset of "satellite", thus what you'd call them is correct by definition. Let's let the astronomers with credibility play and name the objects.

dalbasal 8y ago
Do astronomers get as fiery about taxanomy as biologists do? I kind of had the impression they're easy going about naming, just more wary of upsetting young enthusiests. I heard there were many sternly worded letters from 9 year olds, after the demotion of Pluto. Slightly related, are all the particles in (eg) Saturn's rings wver referred to as moons?
- kersny 8y ago
  Seems like they do: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.04115.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.04115.pdf
  - dalbasal 8y ago
    Oh wow. This is basically a paper about astrologists. Was it published under astrology or anthropology?
jovial_cavalier 8y ago
So does Saturn have billions of moons?
- Nimelrian 8y ago
  Saturn's rings are a bit more special. They are actually only 10-100m thick. There's still a difference (however small it may be) between those and kilometer sized rocks.
- jobigoud 8y ago
  No need ti invoke Saturn, Jupiter has its own rings.
magduf 8y ago
I agree, however with so many "moons" now known and more being discovered constantly, and so many of those being really nothing more than asteroids and possibly fragments and debris from past collisions, and in light of the change of the definition of "planet", I would not at all be surprised if the astronomers decided to change the definition of "moon" to also include hydrostatic equilibrium, and then captured asteroids like Mars' to be renamed "minor moons" or similar.