![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Looking for (or making) a word.
Jul. 12th, 2011 09:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
steorraThere's something I want a word or phrase for, and I don't think there is one.
My main interest within astronomy is in the solar system. The objects in the solar system that I find most interesting are those that are big enough to be round (i.e., in hydrostatic equilibrium), but small enough to be solid - thus excluding the Sun and gas giants.
The objects that fit in my category of interest cut across several of the usual categories. It includes the terrestrial planets, but not the gas giants. It includes all dwarf planets. It includes relatively large moons (most moons with a diameter greater than about 400 km), but not small moons.
I've been calling them "solid round solar system bodies", but that's an awkward phrase and I'd really like a tidier one.
I was brainstorming with a friend the other day and the best we could come up with was something like "terrestrial worlds" or "terrestrial bodies". If I poke around on the internet to see how those phrases have been used before, they both seem to have several uses, none of which is quite what I'm looking for. One of the main issues with "terrestrial" is that it's sometimes used not to distinguish solid objects from gaseous objects, but to distinguish rocky solid bodies from icy solid bodies. But there are other uses of "terrestrial worlds" or "terrestrial bodies" that include both rocky and icy ones; the meaning I found closest to what I want included the terrestrial planets, Pluto, and the moons larger than Pluto, but for no apparent reason didn't include the round moons or dwarf planets (such as Ceres) that are smaller than Pluto.
What do you guys think? Is "terrestrial worlds" or "terrestrial bodies" a good term for the concept I want to name? Can you think of a better one?
My main interest within astronomy is in the solar system. The objects in the solar system that I find most interesting are those that are big enough to be round (i.e., in hydrostatic equilibrium), but small enough to be solid - thus excluding the Sun and gas giants.
The objects that fit in my category of interest cut across several of the usual categories. It includes the terrestrial planets, but not the gas giants. It includes all dwarf planets. It includes relatively large moons (most moons with a diameter greater than about 400 km), but not small moons.
I've been calling them "solid round solar system bodies", but that's an awkward phrase and I'd really like a tidier one.
I was brainstorming with a friend the other day and the best we could come up with was something like "terrestrial worlds" or "terrestrial bodies". If I poke around on the internet to see how those phrases have been used before, they both seem to have several uses, none of which is quite what I'm looking for. One of the main issues with "terrestrial" is that it's sometimes used not to distinguish solid objects from gaseous objects, but to distinguish rocky solid bodies from icy solid bodies. But there are other uses of "terrestrial worlds" or "terrestrial bodies" that include both rocky and icy ones; the meaning I found closest to what I want included the terrestrial planets, Pluto, and the moons larger than Pluto, but for no apparent reason didn't include the round moons or dwarf planets (such as Ceres) that are smaller than Pluto.
What do you guys think? Is "terrestrial worlds" or "terrestrial bodies" a good term for the concept I want to name? Can you think of a better one?
