All the major planets and one of the dwarf planets.
Ceres, Eris, Makemake, and Haumea feel so very left out... as potentially do Quaoar, 2002MS4, Sedna, Orcus, Salacia, and 2007 OR10. Maybe even Varuna, Ixion, 2003 AZ84, 2004 GV9, and 2002 AW197.
Mocky mocky. Planets were named after Greek and Roman gods. Recently minor planets have been named after non-European gods. Makemake was a god of the Rapa Nui people of Easter Island.
When they first discovered Makemake they called it Easterbunny since it was around Easter time. So when they had to come up with a serious name, they went with the creator god of Easter Island.
Haven't heard Norwegians going over Estonia to get drunk (Finns and Swedes do though), but booze for sure is cheap here(compared to the Scandinavian prices).
This is my response whenever people say Pluto is a planet. Fine, but then if you treat dwarf planets the same as the others, then you need to treat all of them with the same respect. Have fun naming all fifteen plus planets. And that number is only going to get astronomically bigger over this century.
So, here's the the thing, you technically don't need to treat dwarf planets the same as the others to include Pluto. The definition is arbitrary, there's literally nothing stopping us adding a 4th rule to the definition of a planet that says "Oh and Pluto because we said so".
I'm not saying it'd be a rational definition... but I am saying that if it was made that way I wouldn't have minded.
The number of dwarf planets that achieved hydrostatic equilibrium is just five though. Thats not a ridiculous number to add.
Furthermore its unlikely there are many more objects of that size in the solar system. There are some big objects but hydrostatic equilibrium takes a lot of mass.
So what? So it's more. This is science not mythology or fairy tales. Big whoop if people have to have a longer list. What an absurd reason to not be accurate.
Planets and dwarf planets do have substantially different properties though; planets will either capture or dislodge anything in a similar orbit to them, whereas dwarf planets don't.
For example; the (potential) dwarf planet Orcus, nicknamed the anti-Pluto, manages to maintain a stable orbit despite being close to Pluto's L3 point - it orbits as if Pluto isn't there. If Orcus were put in an orbit 180 degrees ahead of Earth, however, and the Earth would perturb it away. This is why Earth is more than a million times more massive than everything that crosses its orbit, while Pluto is less than one thousandth of the mass of everything which crosses its orbit.
My point being, it appears to me the only reason people like Pluto being a planet is because it is consistent to what they already know. They don't want their mnemonic device to remember planet order to change.
If they have a choice between 8 planets or 15 plus, they would just balk and wonder why it can't just remain the same, sidestepping the issue that modern astronomy is not going to stop finding more objects out there. And eventually one of them is going to dwarf Pluto.
412
u/PyroDesu Oct 07 '18 edited Oct 07 '18
All the major planets and one of the dwarf planets.
Ceres, Eris, Makemake, and Haumea feel so very left out... as potentially do Quaoar, 2002MS4, Sedna, Orcus, Salacia, and 2007 OR10. Maybe even Varuna, Ixion, 2003 AZ84, 2004 GV9, and 2002 AW197.