Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NotStaggy t1_j4yk6fp wrote

Edit: don't read what i posted. I'm probably wrong i didn't understand tidal lock definition. Left it here because for shiggles.

Sadly no. The definition of a planet: It must orbit a star (in our cosmic neighborhood, the Sun). It must be big enough to have enough gravity to force it into a spherical shape. It must be big enough that its gravity cleared away any other objects of a similar size near its orbit around the Sun. The gravity requirement would make both objects to massive to be tidaly locked and in the goldilocks zone I believe.

−2

3d_blunder t1_j4yoyyk wrote

What's the lower (upper?) bound on "similar size"? The Moon is pretty big, as moons go: is there something about similar masses that would prevent them from simultaneously tidally locking?

2

PM_ME_A_FUTURE t1_j4yovry wrote

Even if they were in a perfectly perpendicular orbit around each other compared to their orbit around the star?

1

NotStaggy t1_j4ypick wrote

Huh maybe, gota stop commenting without my glasses. Tidal locking between a pair of co-orbiting astronomical bodies occurs when one of the objects reaches a state where there is no longer any net change in its rotation rate over the course of a complete orbit. I'm probably wrong as idk wtf I thought tidal lock ment.

1

PM_ME_A_FUTURE t1_j4yppmn wrote

I mean planets can definitely be tidally locked to a star, that's probably what you were thinking of. We have one (or two?) Of those in our solar system

1

aspheric_cow t1_j4ys806 wrote

I don't think the "clear the orbit" criterion refers to a moon or double planet situation. It just means there isn't another big thing orbiting the star at the same distance. I don't know what shiggles and whatshingles are.

1

NotStaggy t1_j4ysejv wrote

I mean I did edit it saying I'm wrong? Shits and giggles. I'd rather leave my correction that I'm wrong than just delete. And my glasses are not on lol don't get old can't see shit.

1