[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

And this can be recognized by whether their motion is ever retrograde with respect to the sun or whether their motion is ever convex toward the sun.

You're welcome to your own definition any way you want to make it, but I think the gravitational force definition makes more sense. You are, of course, free to disagree.

More or less gravity and whether or not the moon moves slower around a planet than the planet moves around the sun (thus never being retrograde with respect to the sun) is not a good definition of being a moon. A moon is an object that would continue circling its primary in the absence of the sun. Thus, Saturn, which circles around Jupiter, would not be a moon of Jupiter because it would go off on its own if the sun were gone. But a rock circling Jupiter slowly tens of millions of miles away would still be a moon of Jupiter if it would continue doing so in the absence of the sun. It is a satellite if it is gravitationally bound (not merely influenced or in resonance with a solar orbit) AT ALL to a primary other than the sun. What's more, scientists would call it a satellite of Jupiter just as they call the moon a satellite of earth except in the context of your silly contention.

[Gorjus]

Okay, you lost it. Changing from a rational discussion to an ad hominem attack (calling my suggested definition "silly") is the sign of failure on your part.

Of course, like any other high-handed declaration you choose to make, you don't have to agree with me, but if you think using a liberal approach to debate - i.e. ad homimen attacks - contributes to a discussion, you'll have to find someone else because I won't play your silly game.