- Joined
- Aug 20, 2006
- Messages
- 13,000
Experts at the University of Central Florida are contesting the International Astronomical Union’s decision to take away Pluto’s planet status in 2006 because it didn’t meet the prerequisite of being the largest gravitational force in its orbit. According to a study led by scientist Philip Metzger, there is only one publication from the last 200 years that even supports this method of classification. Metzger believes if a body is large enough that its gravity allows it to become spherical in shape, then it’s a planet.
"The IAU definition would say that the fundamental object of planetary science, the planet, is supposed to be a defined on the basis of a concept that nobody uses in their research," Metzger said. "And it would leave out the second-most complex, interesting planet in our solar system." "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," he said. "It's a sloppy definition," Metzger said of the IAU's definition.
"The IAU definition would say that the fundamental object of planetary science, the planet, is supposed to be a defined on the basis of a concept that nobody uses in their research," Metzger said. "And it would leave out the second-most complex, interesting planet in our solar system." "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," he said. "It's a sloppy definition," Metzger said of the IAU's definition.