The 2006 IAU definition of planets is dumb for several reasons, one of them being that it doesn't define what a "natural satellite" is. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the Moon is a captured satellite that was its own planet at some point. I would argue that the Earth-Moon system, despite having a barycenter within the Earth is a binary planet as opposed to a natural satellite. Trajectory of the Earth-Moon orbit around the Sun. Note that the Moon never has retrograde motion in relation to the Earth or Sun as defined by it's Solar orbital path. That means the Moon is more heavily influenced by the gravity of the Sun than it is by the gravity of the Earth. In this case, Pluto-Charon would definitely be a binary planet because not only does Charon orbit the Sun more than it orbits Pluto, its common barycenter is outside of Pluto's diameter.
Hmph, well, goes against everything I was ever taught about the moon. I figured it was like Phobos or Deimos. Which is why Phobos and Deimos are classified as moons aswell. Our moon just got stuck with it's classification, rather than a cute Latin name of a Roman God. We both know one thing for sure, the Moon is NOT a star.
the best part was that dude being so sure of himself that the moons a planet. the woman just wasnt sure
dont care how stupid, I totally WOULD. damn, havent seen milfs like since the early 2000s. Shes got that cheesy Gosselin hair and everything. hnnnnnnnng
