Dwarf planet is acceptable just like dwarf stars are.
Asteroid doesn't make much sense, planetoid is just adding extra steps.
We have a lot of similar celestial bodies near us as well that could be considered a part of our solar system, but remain either unconfirmed or otherwise debated.
What is weird to debate is Pluto's status as a planet or dwarf planet, as it is fairly large, and in fairly stable orbit, and stays within the solar system. Adding extra criteria to what makes a planet is weird.
Ceres, Eris and to some extent Makemake are all really interesting and absolutely should be included on solar charts along with Pluto.
Plutos gravity is strong enough to have made it round and it has mostly cleared its orbit (hard to clear an orbit that large that takes that much time to complete one circuit. Even Jupiter would have difficulty in 4 billion years.) That is the definition of planet so that makes it a planet. Dwarf planet is acceptable. Kuiper Belt Object is not.
Ceres, Eris and Makemake are not round and have not cleared their orbits in any significant way.
Charon which is right next to Pluto in the orbit had never been a planet. Pluto has more in common with Charon than other planets. The discussion of dwarf planets has more to do with other bodies further out than Neptune, called transneptunian objects. There's lots of rocks out there past Neptune that are rather similar to Pluto and Charon, but would never be actual planets, but they aren't just asteroids either. So Pluto and Charon joined the new clarification of dwarf planets because it makes more sense that way.
Dwarf planet is acceptable just like dwarf stars are.
Asteroid doesn't make much sense, planetoid is just adding extra steps.
We have a lot of similar celestial bodies near us as well that could be considered a part of our solar system, but remain either unconfirmed or otherwise debated.
What is weird to debate is Pluto's status as a planet or dwarf planet, as it is fairly large, and in fairly stable orbit, and stays within the solar system. Adding extra criteria to what makes a planet is weird.
Ceres, Eris and to some extent Makemake are all really interesting and absolutely should be included on solar charts along with Pluto.
Everything we’ve been taught and shown about space could be bs. Until we are told the truth everything else is just guessing
Exactly
Plutos gravity is strong enough to have made it round and it has mostly cleared its orbit (hard to clear an orbit that large that takes that much time to complete one circuit. Even Jupiter would have difficulty in 4 billion years.) That is the definition of planet so that makes it a planet. Dwarf planet is acceptable. Kuiper Belt Object is not.
Ceres, Eris and Makemake are not round and have not cleared their orbits in any significant way.
Eris definitely appears round with all of our data available, just FYI.
But Pluto is definitely a dwarf planet for sure, not an asteroid or planetoid or whatever they want to call it on any given day.
Charon which is right next to Pluto in the orbit had never been a planet. Pluto has more in common with Charon than other planets. The discussion of dwarf planets has more to do with other bodies further out than Neptune, called transneptunian objects. There's lots of rocks out there past Neptune that are rather similar to Pluto and Charon, but would never be actual planets, but they aren't just asteroids either. So Pluto and Charon joined the new clarification of dwarf planets because it makes more sense that way.