Submitted 1 week ago by CrimsonAxe@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
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 body in this solar system have been demoted.
when you’re a star they let you do it
They never paid their tribute to the $Trump.
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).
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”.
I think it’s a grammar thing, not a science thing.
For example, we consider everything from Buckingham Palace to a one bedroom house to be a “building.”
Similarly, everything from a broom closet to ballroom is a ‘room.’
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 that than an asteroid.
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 ainxe 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.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Its semantics, and a subject of ongoing debate.
Per wikipedia, I really like this proposal:
I like this proposal. It basically means a planet should be big enough to consolidate all the stuff in its orbital area, not be part of an asteroid field.
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 1 week ago
For instance, just wait until you get a load of what astronomers consider to be metals.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Why would I turn down such an opportunity? I’m great at naming things.
Jarix@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I’m absolutely making something if I’m given the opportunity,
Planet Bob is not great but still way better than K-57743267.7654