[ad_1]
A little over 13 years have passed since the official definition of Pluto changed. What was once part of the planets of the solar system became a humble dwarf planet in 2006. Now, NASA leader Jim Bridenstine has revived cosmic controversy by reiterating his belief that Pluto should be reclassified as a planet.
In an untransmitted interview, Mr. Bridenstine stated that he remained committed to believing that Pluto was a legitimate planet.
When he visited the University of Colorado's Aerospace Engineering Science Building, he said, "For information, Pluto is a planet.
"You can write that the administrator of NASA once again declared Pluto a planet.
"I'm sticking to that, it's the way I've learned it and I'm engaging in it."
In August 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) defined the definition of a planet forcing it to "clean" its orbit, which means that it represents the greatest gravitational force in its orbit.
READ MORE: Scientists think "ocean of water" exists in Pluto
This had the effect of removing Pluto from the elite ranks of the solar system, bringing the number of planets back to nine.
This relegation results from the influence of Neptune's gravity on the neighboring planet.
Pluto also shares its orbit with gas and frozen objects in the Kuiper Belt.
But many astronomy experts have never accepted the change of status despite the official decision.
However, Mr Bridenstine's comments probably have no influence on the official bodies and convince them to turn around to restore Pluto.
JUST IN: Black hole warning: Why did a scientist create disastrous prospects for life?
A study from last year, however, provided stronger support for decision-making.
A study from the University of Central Florida (UCF) states that the reason why Pluto lost its planet status is "invalid".
He reviewed the scientific literature of the last 200 years and found that a publication – dating back to 1802 – that used the in-orbit compensation requirement to classify planets, and was based on reasoning without rebuttal.
Philip Metzger, scientist in UCF planetary sciences, who works at the Florida Space Institute of the University, said, "The definition of IAU would indicate that the fundamental purpose of science Planetary, the planet, is supposed to be defined from a concept that no one uses in their research.
READ MORE: An unexplained space forms the "proof of the previous universe"
"And that would leave out the second most complex and interesting planet in our solar system."
Mr. Metzger explained that moons such as Saturn's Titan and Jupiter's Europa were commonly called planets by planetary scientists from Galileo.
He added, "We now have a list of over 100 recent examples of planetary scientists using the word planet in a way that violates the definition of AIU, but they do it because they have functional utility.
"It's a sloppy definition. They did not say what they meant by cleaning their orbits.
"If you take that literally, then there are no planets, because no planet emerges from its orbit."
READ MORE: Astronomers spy on a black hole swallowing the neuton star
[ad_2]
Source link