I agree with Gilgamesh!, i love the winter and the snow, Neptune sounds like fun

But i'm going off topic a little, what the fuck are these new planets like Ceres, Kepler or Eres. I grow up knowing the 9 planets (Mercury to Pluto). When were they discovered and why do they have such shit names?

i read it when i was young... i wanna read it!

Bear in mind tidelocking only turns out to that clichéd fire and ice model if the planet has zero eccentricity, otherwise it is going to "wobble" noticeably shifting the terminator hundreds or even thousands of km as it goes around the star. Also, massive winds and storms bred by the difference between the dark side (high pressure, dry and cold atmosphere) and the light side (hot and wet, low pressure).

If fact if the planet is wet you are unlikely to see the sun anywhere for long, since both the fryer zone and the terminator are likely going to be perpetually covered by thunderstorms, if for different reasons...

I object to the abuse of mod powers to change the Uranus jokes with futurama references... Who in the world watches futurama?

I do! It's a great show!

Well... that's good for me! I hate the dark. :P

The International Astronomical Union in its infinite wisdom decided to reclassify some planets as dwarf planets, because they began to discover more planets way outside the orbit of Neptune. It was done for purely aesthetic reasons. They didn't like the notion that our solar system could have upwards of dozens of planets many of which are probably yet to be discovered, and they didn't like the fact that these new planets didn't have the near circular orbits they viewed as perfect. So their new definition fixated on that rather then on any property of the objects themselves. Basically the definition was orbits a star, and has cleared out most of the stuff in the area of their orbit. 

It was a purely asinine proposal, and incredibly idiotic to accept that as the definition of a planet. Anything that didn't fit the criteria, but was roughly spherical then came to be defined as a dwarf planet or a platetesimal. The problem is that in the intervening years astronomers have discovered hundreds of planets outside of our solar system, and they thumb their noses at that definition. There are planets that don't orbit stars at all, and very large planets that cross the orbits of one another. There are planets that have highly eliptical orbits that are more like comets that what we expect of planets. Under this definition you can have planets much bigger then the Earth that must be referred to as dwarf planets, because they cross the orbits of even bigger planets, and in the case of a rogue planet that doesn't orbit a star it is actually a oxymoron to refer to them as any kind of planet.

Some astronomers will even qualify the definition as only being applicable to our solar system. Like our solar system is a special case, and deserves special rules. That nonsense is blatantly unscientific when it comes to terminology. The names of things don't change from place to place. A black hole is still a black hole whether it is in the center of a galaxy, or in a binary star system. It is just ego to suggest otherwise. Which is why it is going to probably take decades before they being the International Astronomical Union hold another vote, and fess up to being wrong all along.

Anyway what you should take away from all of this is that these are all planets. Picture a planet in your head, and these places would match that image. When it comes to naming astronomical objects the discoverer has most of the input. When it comes to planets and moons it seems to have become kind of a tradition that they end up being named after characters from mythology. By the way Ceres was first defined as our fifth planet, then as a asteroid, and now it is a dwarf planet under their screwy system.

@topic

Assuming I was immune to the effects of the local environment. I would have to choose to live on the moon Io orbiting the planet Jupiter. In one vista you could see that the ground you stand on comes in a veritable rainbow of colors like a childs water painting. In the distance you might see a lava flow, and half a dozen volcanoes sending up pillars of lava. You would see that a rainbow colored snow was slowly flitering back down, and a brilliant aurora would light up the whole sky. Beyond that you would see the gas giant itself with the terminator cutting it in half. On the day side you would see the clouds racing around the planet, and on the night side you would see giant lightning storms. Then down by the horizon you would see it bright white Europa as the sun just starts to peak up from behind its mable like surface. All of this in a almost perfect silence.

I would live on Oa, home to the Green Lantern Corps. I'ld schmooze my way into getting a Power Ring.

Thanks for saying, I knew Pluto was a dwarf planet, but I personally see it as an actual planet still. Anything bigger than Jupiter's Titan (moon) should be considered a planet, in my view. Also, it's pretty stupid, that they call bigger planets, dwarf planets. Earth had an orbit like that for the first half billion years or so, of it's existence, until it crashed into Mars and formed the 3 moons of both planets and stabilised orbits of both planets. It's just ignorant that some scientists, would define a discovery of a planet to just the solar system, knowing they are probably trillions of them. I had no idea Ceres was discovered before Jupiter! Finally, I don't like that recently discovered planets tend to have more scientific names, mythological ones are better. Although, the discover does have the power to name, anyway

If anyone needs me, i'll be in the Angry Dome.