you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children)

It is convenient to classify it as a dwarf planet but that doesn’t mean that “dwarf planet” and “planet” are scientific categories in the purest sense of the term

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (2 children)

    What's the "purest sense of the term"? A planet is presently defined as a body which orbits a star, has enough mass to be roughly round, and has cleared its orbit of other objects. Dwarf planets are defined as fulfilling the first two criteria, but not the third.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (1 child)

    I mean that these descriptions are somewhat arbitrary. Roughly round is not a very precise delineation, there will be edge cases where it’s not clear which category they fall into

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago*

    Roughly round is not a very precise delineation

    The actual qualification is "hydrostatic equilibrium", but I didn't want to complicate the point with technical mathematical jargon.

    there will be edge cases where it’s not clear which category they fall into

    Which is pretty par for the course so far as scientific classifications go. Classification is a human endeavor to attempt to neatly categorize things to better understand them, but the universe is what it is and defies tidy categorization. Just about any scientific classification you can devise will have edge cases and ambiguity.

  • source
  • parent