It is estimated that there may be 200 dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt of the outer Solar System and up to 10...

>It is estimated that there may be 200 dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt of the outer Solar System and up to 10,000 in the region beyond known as the Oort cloud.

Pluto really is a shit when there could be 10,000+ of them floating out there

even if it was true, then what?

very very far and very very cold rocks. They will be good to mine at best.

Care about only the big ones then, I guess? Like this supposed planet nine which is surmised to be Neptune-sized.

...

Planet 9 is a very reasonable hypothesis.

So is the existence of God.

>reasonable
Testable. We only care about hypotheses we can test. Everything else is potentially a perpetual goalpost shifting waste of time. 'Reasonable' means less than nothing.

>Kuiper belt
>outer Solar System

The Oort Clout wants to have a word with you.

There is no real distinction between them though

>there's no distinction between the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud

U wot mate

>oort cloud
>even a part of the solar system
it's outside the heliosphere you dips

Its gravitationally bound to the sun, making it part of the solar system

>no real distinction
>tfw spacial separation isn't real

The definition of "dwarf planet" is incredibly vague.

Let me formalize it for you:

A Dwarf planet is a glorified asteroid.

a) orbits a star directly; b) has reached hydrostatic equilibrium; c) has cleared its orbit of other objects of comparable size;

Asteroid: yes, no, no
Dwarf planet: yes, yes, no
Planet: yes, yes, yes

Addendum: Ceres has been promoted from "asteroid" to "dwarf planet" because it has reached hydrostatic equilibrium (i.e. is of almost round shape), while Pluto was demoted from "planet" to "dwarf planet" as it hasn't cleared its orbit of objects of similar size (is part of the Kuiper Belt, just as Ceres is part of the inner Solar System asteroid belt).

I have my own definition of a planet

Anything that achieves hydro-static equilibrium that isn't a star we will call a planet

So round moons are "planets" all of a sudden?

Yes luna is a planet
If it orbited the sun directly we'd call it a terrestrial world

this is all just a silly semantics issue. you can call these things whatever you want but it doesn't change what they are. Ganymede for example is a fuck huge planet.

>Yes luna is a planet
No.

>this is all just a silly semantics issue
What's with the retarded "hurr durr it's just semantics" meme reaction to whatever argument is being made? provided perfectly logical classification criteria (the only case it doesn't account for are comets, but what differs them from asteroids is primarily composition, i.e. mostly ice vs mostly rock).

>a rose by any other name would smell as sweet

No. What you advocate is to throw rose bushes together into one pot with grass and trees, just because all are plants.

He calls moon Luna. Just by that alone you should be able to tell that he's a faggot.

Luna is better than Selene

The line was drawn at the heliosphere. Doing it by gravitational influence is dumb seeing as the Sun's gravity extends infinitely. You're like those autists who argue over the Karman Line

>Doing it by gravitational influence is dumb seeing as the Sun's gravity extends infinitely.

At a certain distance, the Sun's gravitation is surpassed by the gravitation of some other nearby star, and that's what should constitute the absolute border of the Solar System.

>The line was drawn at the heliosphere.
That's just as good as drawing a proverbial line in the sand. Whimsically, arbitrarily.

This
Just kill yourself.

>I have no plausible counterarguments so I'll just tell the other user some stupid annoying shit

It is estimated that there may be 200 dwarf brainlets who looked at this thread, and at least one of them even posted.

some of them might even have enough mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium

>letting a Dutch speaker name parts of our solar system

Bad call, bruv