Is it necessary to return the status of the planet to Pluto? Scientist Philip Metzger thinks so!
A new study from the University of Central Florida suggests that the reason Pluto lost its planetary status cannot be considered valid. In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) established certain requirements for the status of the planet. One of them pointed to the need to clear the orbit (for the planet to have the greatest gravitational force).
Pluto could not fulfill the requirements. Neptune affects it by its gravity, and on the orbital path of Pluto, there are frozen gases and objects from the Kuiper belt. So, the celestial body was no longer considered a planet and assigned to the group of “dwarf planets”. However, a new study from Philip Metzger insists that this standard from the MAS is not observed in the scientific literature.
Metzger studied scientific treatises over the past 200 years and found only one publication for the year 1802, which uses the criterion of cleaning by the object of the orbit. He said that the satellites Titan and Europe have been regularly called planets since the time of Galileo. It turns out that nobody simply uses the definition of MAS in research. He also insists that this is a vague requirement, since there is not a single planet that would completely clear the orbit. The scientist added that the separation between the planets and other celestial bodies, such as asteroids, was carried out in the early 1950s. Then Gerard Kuiper published an article in which he pointed out the difference based on the process of formation.
Scientist Philip Metzger questions the logic of Pluto’s classification. He is supported by many other scientific authors
Research co-author Kirby Runyon of the Johns Hopkins Laboratory of Applied Physics says that the definition of the MAS should be considered erroneous. The study of the literature showed that the purification of the orbit is not a standard that is used to separate asteroids from the planets, as stated by representatives of the IAA in 2006. Runyon believes that the definition of a planetary nature should be based on the internal properties of the object, and not those that can change, like orbital dynamics.
Metzger proposes to classify the planet on the basis of its sufficient size: then there is a powerful gravity, which allows to achieve a spherical shape. Pluto has an underground ocean, a multi-layered atmosphere, organic compounds, evidence of ancient lakes and several satellites. It is even more dynamic and “alive” than Mars. Therefore, it would be foolish to disregard it and deny its planetary status.