5 ms·
We could simply define Pluto as the edge of our Solar System and everything beyond its orbit a Kuiper Belt Object. There's nothing wrong with that. Why bother
by hn_submit 16d ago
We could simply define Pluto as the edge of our Solar System and everything beyond its orbit a Kuiper Belt Object. There's nothing wrong with that.
Why bother coming up with a pseudo-scientific requirements list for planets when these don't work for a large number of cases.
- bryanlarsen 16d agoThat would include Ceres, Quaoar and Orcus as planets. It's really hard to come up with a definition of a planet that includes Pluto but doesn't include Orcus. Orcus is very close to a mirror of Pluto that is 120 degrees out of phase. Even in name: Orcus is the Roman name for the Greek god Pluto.
- hn_submit 16d agoWhat part of "we define it so" did you not understand?!
- bryanlarsen 16d agoThe three I listed are inside Pluto's orbit. Part of the time for the latter 2. If you want to say that Pluto is a planet for historical reasons, that's fine. Just don't try to invent pseudo-scientific nonsense to justify it at the same time you are decrying psuedo-scientific nonsense.
- vova_hn2 16d ago> We could simply define Pluto as the edge of our Solar System and everything beyond its orbit a Kuiper Belt Object. A Kuiper Belt Object not being a part of Solar System doesn't make any sense. A star system is the star + all objects that orbit it. Why would you arbitrarily exclude some objects that orbit the Sun?
- autoexec 16d ago> We could simply define Pluto as the edge of our Solar System and everything beyond its orbit a Kuiper Belt Object. There's nothing wrong with that. There is because Pluto is inside the Kuiper Belt and just as much a part of it as all the other "planets" in there. There's nothing wrong with defining our solar system as having 8 planets plus a bunch of other stuff.