I will give my definition and distinction between a planet and a moon. My definition is provisional - not necessarily correct - but at least readers will know the nature of my argument.
A planet is conceived within the Sun - as a sunspot. If the sunspot successfully grows large enough to exhaust the Sun's "atmosphere" in its shell area, it will undergo birth as a planet. In particular, the growth of such an entity is the polymerization of deuterium, a massive nuclear sphere. If such entities were to collide, they would explode. Once the "atmosphere" of the Sun (liquid Elysium) has fallen inward - under the force of gravity - the newly born planet would be subject to collisions at the nuclear level. This would result in radioactive decay on the surface of the planet. As nuclear pieces broke off the pieces would undergo radioactive decay until each piece became stable - a normal nucleus of some element. Thus normal matter would come into being. Normal matter would build as a layer on the nuclear sphere. The creation of such a nuclear sphere would result in its having relatively high spin. As normal matter continually formed, eventually the rotational momentun would throw off normal matter. If this matter coalesces into a sphere (more or less), this would be a moon.
Thus a planet would have a nuclear core (and a spin) and a moon would be entirely normal matter.
The case of Venus: barely any rotation - more or less tidally trapped by the Sun; no perceptable magnetic field; no apparent core.
Mercury would be the original planet coming out of the Sun (more correctly, the Sun would have shrunk inward). Mercury would have undergone radioactive decay, thus producing normal matter. Once the Sun has shrunk inward and become very hot again, its radiative heat would have melted the outer layer of Mercury. This melt would have come off Mercury, coalesced, and formed a sphere. The birth of Venus. Over much time, Venus would have receded away from the Sun for the same reason our Moon receded from Earth. Mercury would not recede because of its nuclear core. That is, Mercury would have a much larger inertial mass than its presumed gravitational mass.
It gravity is actually a flux of gravitons, then the force of gravity is finite and limited. A large nuclear body would be resistance to being pushed by a limited force.
According to the apparent composition of Venus, the material would be a liquid at the orbit of Mercury. We know very little about Mercury but I would characterize it as high temperature slag floating on a rapidly spinning nuclear core.
I am not expecting this view to be accepted. My purpose is to put it on readers mental horizon as a possibility.
Gregg Wilson
