The Kuiper belt has long been theorized and was proven years ago. The soemthing new is that it may have a large number of worlds which will challenge the definition of a planet. If worlds are built from a continuom of worldlets where do you draw the line of what constitutes a planet. The Pluto isn't a planet argument was based on it being in the Kuiper belt and simply being the largest kuiper belt object. If KBO's range all the way up to Mars or Earth size, that arguement makes no sense.
If its a sphere and not in orbit around something else it should be a planet IMO. Terrestrial, gas giant, or ice dwarf(or something similar if not all are dwarfs). Add Ceres back to the list of terrestrial planets while you're at it and give the large Moons some distinction as well.
Regards,
Mark
Space/Science » in reply to The news is cool, don't get me wrong
Planets Not Comets
The whole thread (26 posts)
- Pluto's Not Only A Planet - It's The Dominant Class Of Planets
- planetary defs and voyager anomalies
- The news is cool, don't get me wrong
- Alan Stern is probably...
- Thanks For Pointing Out What Alcaray Missed
- What did I miss?
- There's a point...
- Thanks For Pointing Out What Alcaray Missed
- Planets Not Comets
- Alan Stern is probably...
- Interesting implications