New research argues for Pluto as planet

There was no doubt that Pluto was a planet when Clyde Tombaugh spotted it in 1930, but scientists rethought that after learning more about the solar system. In 2006, a new definition of what is an aircraft of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) saw Pluto back down to dwarf planet status. This decision has never been made with some members of the public and scientists. A new study of the University of Central Florida's planet scientist Philip Metzger shows that Pluto should regain its status as a planet.

In the past decades, Pluto seemed to be a somewhat strange planet, but clearly a planet. However, scientists have since learned the scale of the Kuiper belt and have even spotted several larger Kuiper objects than Pluto. The 2006 IAU definition of a planet included several essential requirements. A planet must be spherical, what Pluto is. However, he must also have cleared his orbit to become the main gravitational force. This is where Pluto failed the test. It crosses the orbit of Neptune, whose gravity affects Pluto. There are also several large Kuiper belt objects in the space near Pluto.

You could call Metzger a skeptic of dwarf planets. He reviewed the scientific literature for more than 200 years to determine if the definition of IAU made sense. According to the article, Metzger found only one example of orbiting as a planetary descriptor, and that was in 1802. The reasoning used in this paper was also refuted since a long time. Metzger argues that the IAU definition applies standards that are not even used in global research. He cites more than 100 cases of researchers using the term "planet" to designate objects that do not fit the IAU definition in recent publications. He goes so far as to call the definition of "sloppy" AIU.

Scientists say that Pluto's geology is the second most complex of Earth's.

This is not the first time that astronomers have been trying to develop a definition of planets. In the 1950s, Gerard Kuiper (of the fame of the Kuiper Belt) published an article on how objects were formed to determine whether they were planets or not. Metzger says that this reasoning is also insufficient.

Metzger and his co-author say rather that an object must be classified as a planet if its gravity is sufficient to become spherical. This makes more sense because it is an intrinsic property of the planet rather than something variable like orbit, according to the article. This definition would make Pluto a planet once more, but it could also mean deeper objects in the Kuiper Belt and the dwarf Ceres planet in the asteroid belt would also be promoted.

So, if you want Pluto to come back, it brings friends to the feast of the planet.

Now read: Pluto could have formed a giant comet, not a planet, mysterious and unexpected X-rays emanating from Pluto, and the smooth surface of Pluto is probably a sea of ​​low-flow nitrogen ice.