New Research Says that Pluto Should be A Planet

Steven Burnett
Steven Burnett

Updated · Sep 11, 2018

SHARE:

News.Market.us is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more.
close
Advertiser Disclosure

At Market.us News, we strive to bring you the most accurate and up-to-date information by utilizing a variety of resources, including paid and free sources, primary research, and phone interviews. Our data is available to the public free of charge, and we encourage you to use it to inform your personal or business decisions. If you choose to republish our data on your own website, we simply ask that you provide a proper citation or link back to the respective page on Market.us News. We appreciate your support and look forward to continuing to provide valuable insights for our audience.

The highest point in the sad story of Pluto happened in 2006 when the International Astronomical Union made the official announcement that Pluto cannot be considered a planet. The same was removed from the ninth position in the Solar System. As of now, Pluto is considered a dwarf planet that exists in the Kuiper belt. The Astronomical Union had maintained that Pluto does not qualify the basic characteristics of planets. However, a recent research by a group of scientists says that Pluto is most definitely a planet and that it should be given the position back. They also maintain that the basis on which Pluto lost the position is not really valid.

According to the International Astronomical Union, Pluto was not being the largest gravitational force on its orbit. Instead, the celestial body was being influenced by the Neptune and that the orbit followed by Pluto did consist of other objects. This lead to the conclusion that Pluto does not deserve the planet status. The research team, however, believes that the method used to determine the planet status is not valid and that it should not be followed. Even when the team explored 200 years of research, only one study was backing up the method used by IAU.

“It’s a sloppy definition,” Metzger talks about the IAU’s definition. “They didn’t say what they meant by clearing their orbit. If you take that literally, then there are no planets, because no planet clears its orbit.” In order to show how flawed the definition is, Metzger added the following: “We now have a list of well over 100 recent examples of planetary scientists using the word planet in a way that violates the IAU definition, but they are doing it because it’s functionally useful,” The research has re-lighted one of the biggest debates in the history of astronomy.

SHARE:
Steven Burnett

Steven Burnett

Steven Burnett has over 15 years of experience spanning a wide range of industries and domains. He has a flair for collating statistical data through extensive research practices, and is well-versed in generating industry-specific reports that enables his clients to better comprehend a market’s landscape and aid in making well-informed decisions. His hobbies include playing football and the guitar.