globefish23 t1_ja6ymv4 wrote

Because none of these fuels are perfect chemical compounds.

There's always a couple percent of impurities containing sulphur or nitrogen compounds or mineral salts containing metals.

Plus there's additives from the refining process.


globefish23 t1_j880ivp wrote

Reply to llama cat by lanquacks

We called our cat 'Kuzco' because he looked like a llama when he first explored our house.


globefish23 t1_iy4i8ao wrote

>It's not illegal to have 300 planets or whatever amount.

All of these categories are pretty arbitrary in the first place, but cramming everything into one category is just cumbersome and silly.

>I'm all aboard the "spherical due to it's own gravity" train

Yes, dwarf planets fullfill this requirement (hydrostatic equilibrium). What they lack is having cleared their orbit from other objects.

Asteroids lack both of these.

It's essentially dividing celestial bodies into three groups by their mass with physically measurable thresholds.


globefish23 t1_iy2zitm wrote

It was recategorized into the new category 'dwarf planet' in 2006, after bigger objects (e.g. Eris, Sedna) further out in the Kuiper belt were discovered.

We would have hundreds of planets by now, and would be in the same predicament as in the 19th century with Ceres.

Ceres was initially called a planet, until the category 'asteroid' was created. Now Ceres is a dwarf planet as well.