It was only in 1969 (nice) that fungi officially became its own separate kingdom.

  • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I believe the rule of thumb is binary planets’ barycentre is external to either body. This is the case with Pluto/Charon, I think it’s also the case with Earth/Moon.

      • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, I went and checked after posting.

        My hunch is that if the moon was closer it would ‘drag’ the barycentre closer to the moon.

        Which, given the moon is slowly receeding, means it was probably a binary early on in the formation of the solar system.

        • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Other way around, the further apart the objects are the less likely the barycentre is to be inside one of them, you can picture it as a rubber band with a dot drawn on it, the more you stretch it the further the dot gets from both ends even if it gets further from one end faster.

    • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s a good rule of thumb… but it’s probably not enough; no reasonable definition would call Jupiter a star, or even a brown dwarf, or the Solar System a binary system, yet the Sol - Jupiter barycentre is outside the sun… (the whole system’s barycentre is sometimes inside the sun, but that’s due to Saturn’s, Uranus’, and Neptune’s pulls cancelling Jupiter’s).

      I’d call the barycentre thing a necessary but not sufficient requirement; a proper definition of double planet should probably also take into account other factors like the relative mass and density of the bodies, and their minimum and maximum distance.