Discord
Changelog
07-06-2015, 12:49 PM
Since you guys are on Kuiper belt objects...
The Kuiper belt is like the asteroid belt because it IS and asteroid belt. the primary difference being that it has a greater number of comets due to being so far away. Remember that the asteroid belt likely had large numbers of comets as well in the beginning however due to the proximity to the host star they would have burned off long ago.
I agree with the notion that totally clearing its orbital path is somewhat unrealistic as no planet has in truth ever accomplished this despite the unusual stability of the Sol system. I also agree that it would have been more useful to set a hard limit and say Mass must be greater than X to be a planet if mass is less than X object is an asteroid. This being said i would like to jump into history here and mention that the idea of what is a planet itself has changed over the centuries...
In the original Greek definition planet included ANY non-comet that orbited the sun and did not orbit a secondary body. This was changed later to include only the largest of these objects as by the original definition there could literally be MILLIONS of planets as it would have to include every asteroid within an approximately 200AU radius (or out past the termination shock where the object is considered to be outside of the solar system).
This new classification is simply an attempt to do the same as the last reclassification, weed out all but the major bodies of the system. The new definition however is flawed because as stated many times it lacks hard numbers. The better method would be to toss the "Dwarf planet" category all together due to it being so ill defined, and set a hard limit on a major body. anything above that is a planet anything below is an asteroid.
This being said i am of the opinion that Pluto is not a planet but instead a super-massive asteroid. here are my reasons.
Pluto is still far smaller than any major planet, this alone should be something but to further support this i would like to point to its orbit. Pluto follows a radically differing orbital plane than all other planets in the system. not only is the orbit eccentric, passing through the orbits of other planets, but also unlike all major planets its orbital plane itself is tilted to an extreme angle. Some may point to pluto's moon as conformation of planetary status however even some of the very small asteroids have been found to have tiny, car sized, moons.
While not all may agree with this take. I feel it justifies my position on this topic.
The Kuiper belt is like the asteroid belt because it IS and asteroid belt. the primary difference being that it has a greater number of comets due to being so far away. Remember that the asteroid belt likely had large numbers of comets as well in the beginning however due to the proximity to the host star they would have burned off long ago.
I agree with the notion that totally clearing its orbital path is somewhat unrealistic as no planet has in truth ever accomplished this despite the unusual stability of the Sol system. I also agree that it would have been more useful to set a hard limit and say Mass must be greater than X to be a planet if mass is less than X object is an asteroid. This being said i would like to jump into history here and mention that the idea of what is a planet itself has changed over the centuries...
In the original Greek definition planet included ANY non-comet that orbited the sun and did not orbit a secondary body. This was changed later to include only the largest of these objects as by the original definition there could literally be MILLIONS of planets as it would have to include every asteroid within an approximately 200AU radius (or out past the termination shock where the object is considered to be outside of the solar system).
This new classification is simply an attempt to do the same as the last reclassification, weed out all but the major bodies of the system. The new definition however is flawed because as stated many times it lacks hard numbers. The better method would be to toss the "Dwarf planet" category all together due to it being so ill defined, and set a hard limit on a major body. anything above that is a planet anything below is an asteroid.
This being said i am of the opinion that Pluto is not a planet but instead a super-massive asteroid. here are my reasons.
Pluto is still far smaller than any major planet, this alone should be something but to further support this i would like to point to its orbit. Pluto follows a radically differing orbital plane than all other planets in the system. not only is the orbit eccentric, passing through the orbits of other planets, but also unlike all major planets its orbital plane itself is tilted to an extreme angle. Some may point to pluto's moon as conformation of planetary status however even some of the very small asteroids have been found to have tiny, car sized, moons.
While not all may agree with this take. I feel it justifies my position on this topic.