It was a burning question of mine for a while now:
I understand that dwarf planets like Pluto and Ceres aren’t considered planets of the solar system, but why are they called ‘dwarf PLANETS’ if they aren’t planets.
And no one really says, “the sun isn’t a star, it’s a Dwarf Star”. Nor is it declassified as one because of it.
So, why are dwarf planets not planets, but dwarf stars are stars?
It is due to the inconsistency of language, rather than properties of the objects.
DEI celestial bodies in this solar system have been demoted.
They never paid their tribute to the $Trump.
when you’re a star they let you do it
is it maybe because a dwarf star is a stage of a star… a dwarf planet is just the size of a rock?
They had to define planet and that left a hole of large thing smaller than a planet but larger than what they wanted to call an asteroid.
they had other options when they defined planet. I preferred the on that turn our moon into a planet - but they didn’t listen to me. (They should not listen to me - I’m not an astronomer)
For the same reason that a little fire and big fire are both fires but a small rock is a pebble while a big rock is a boulder. Fire is more about what something is doing while rocks are more about what they are.
I kind of agree - though I’d say they are both about what they’re “doing”, as the small rock can’t do what the big rock can (clear its celestial neighborhood).
Not only isn’t the Sun really a dwarf compared to many smaller stars, it’s also not yellow. These are just holdovers from early astronomy where things were classified before a lot of knowledge wasn’t known. Which is also the case with Pluto.
Well then Superman is going to have a bad time here
Turns out Kal-El was raised by the Kents; he just never developed powers because ours isn’t a true yellow sun.
Mostly because Pluto was called a planet for a while, and reclassifying it upset so many people that they couldn’t just go “it’s just an asteroid sorry”.
In addition to the other people you’re hearing, “dwarf planet” also has specific criteria associated with how the body interreacts with its solar system. A dwarf planet has to orbit its star directly and be big enough for its gravity to have pulled it into a roughly spherical shape, but small enough that it hasn’t cleared its orbit.
A dwarf star is just a star that’s not particularly big and bright for whatever reason. While the terminology is similar, the usage is very different.
I suspect that we might not use the term “dwarf planet”, were it not that the objects we initially created the category to describe were originally classed as planets. The category labelling is a bit arbitrary, we just discovered that what we now call dwarf planets are quite abundant and that there was a clear line that could be drawn to distinguish them from the rest of what we called planets, and so decided to draw that line between them.
It’s basically it’s large enough to be round like a planet but can’t achieve orbital dominance like the big 8. So it looks like a planet but acts like an astroid. I think dwarf planet is a good term for them. Becase if they were a little bigger they would have all the same properties of a planet and are a lot closer to becoming a planet that than an asteroid.
Hell I think Jupiter shouldn’t be a planet. Since it’s really close to being a star. I think it should be classified as a protostar.
How much bigger would Jupiter have to be before fusion started?
Just the extra mass of 13 times I know doesn’t sounds like a lot but going from Earth to Jupiter’s is about 318 times. Maybe instead of protostar we should use failed star since it has all the hydrogen and seller dust of that a star would used forces fuel.
Well, for one, a dwarf star probably was a star to begin with, but ran out of fuel or something.
A dwarf planet, on the other hand, isn’t the same once you strip away the rocks that make it qualify.
I am almost certainly missing something given that this is based on stuff I read almost a decade or more ago.
deleted by creator
