The size of the planet has nothing to do with it, what matters is how long it takes to go around the sun or parent star.
well technically its not a planet no more but Pluto
The longest number that would also be the smallest would be the highest number counted to just made into its negative form.
Jupiter is the largest planet and Mercury is the smallest planet in our solar system. Extra-solar radii extremes would be HAT-P-32b as the largest and Kepler-42d as the smallest.
Pluto is no longer considered a planet, but back when it was a planet, it would fit that description. Mercury is now the official smallest planet, but it is closest, not farthest.
Neither one! Jupiter is the biggest and Neptune is the smallest. If they didn't announce that Pluto wasn't a planet anymore, Pluto would be the smallest.
Pluto was the smallest but is no longer classed as a planet, it is now a dwarf planet, so going by that, Mercury is now the smallest, followed by Mars, so it would be Mars.
That would be Mars, Mercury being the smallest. Unless you still count Pluto, in which case Mercury would be the second smallest.
the smallest planet would be Pluto but since scientists say its not it would be MERCURY.
pluto
Mercury is the smallest and the nearest planet to the sun in our solar system. It is a rocky planet with extreme temperature variations due to its proximity to the sun.
The smallest planet in our solar system is mercury. It's the smallest known planet in our galaxy, since we would not be able to see one that small in any other far off systems. smaller planets could exist, would they still have to fulfil the same criteria? Ceres, a dwarf planet is only 900km in diameter. This is about the limit, much smaller than this and the planet would struggle to hold a spherical shape.
No. I do believe that the side opposite of the shortest (smallest) angle would be the smallest. Hope this helps.