I've been super busy the past few weeks with shows and traveling and all kinds of exciting stuff you'll read about when I can sit down and write about it. But with no sign of palpable creative time in the next few weeks, my birthday being 3 days away (March 20th) and not wanting to leave you all hanging with no new words from me here is my argumentative essay for English Class on why Pluto should be a planet! Enjoy!
Pluto: Ninth in our Solar System but First in our Hearts
In 2006 the International Astronomical Union defined what the word planet means, approximately 2,500 years after the word was first created, the definition is as follows: “[A planet] Is in orbit around the Sun, has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and has ‘cleared the neighborhood’ around its orbit”( "IAU Definition of a Planet." Wikipedia). This new definition of the word eliminated Pluto as a planet, due to the fact that it has not “cleared the neighborhood” around its orbit, due to its size and distance from the sun. The 2/3 ain’t bad mentality did not apply to the IAU and they demoted Pluto, Roman god of the Underworld, to dwarf planet status. The problem is, if an Earth sized object was in Pluto’s position, it would not have the gravity to clear the orbital neighborhood. In addition, a planet like Mars would not have been able to clear its orbital neighborhood without the assistance of its much larger planetary friend Jupiter. Due to the over specificity of the IAU’s definition of planet, the definition should be more generalized and Pluto should be reinstated as a planet.
In 2006 one of the IAU’s main arguments against Pluto that another Dwarf Planet, Eris, was bigger than Pluto. So, if we didn’t give Eris full on planetary honors, then why should we give it to Pluto? But, with new technology, in November of 2014 it was discovered that in fact, Pluto was bigger than Eris. As aforementioned one of the requirements for being called a planet in the years following the demotion of Pluto is being able to clear your solar-orbital neighborhood of debris and other objects, yet Pluto does not possess the mass to be able to accomplish this feat. But, if Earth was in even Uranus’ position, it would not be able to vacate the celestial tenants in the orbital path. Mars has the assistance of Jupiter to clear the way, without the gas giant we couldn’t call Mars a planet either. In addition, Alan Stern, a planetary scientist from the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado said “If you take the IAU's definition strictly, no object in the solar system is a planet. No object in the solar system has entirely cleared its zone.” (Wall, Mike. "Should Pluto Be a Planet after All? Experts Weigh in.") Stern is an advocate for the IAU official definition only containing the first two criteria and losing the third one altogether. Stern cited that Pluto’s demotion came from “an unscientific desire to keep numbers low” and that “Many people think it’s special to be a planet.” But people think that if we let Pluto in we have to let all the near Pluto sized objects found in the icy regions of the Kuiper Belt, and that having a number of planets in the teens rather than the official 8 would make the original 8 less valuable, but Stern says “It would simply reflect astronomers' increasing understanding of the solar system. In that understanding, small, icy planets far outnumber big gassy or rocky ones… There are a large number of planets, and most of them are small," Stern said. "It's the Earth-like planets and the giant planets that are freakish.”
Along with the advocacy from several scientists, the majority of the general populous wants to bring back Pluto and has no problem with it inviting along its icy friends to the planetary party. In a debate done recently at Harvard, three scientists got in front of a crowd, two defending Pluto’s honor and one fighting to keep it classified as a dwarf planet, the three scientists debated and at the end of the debate the crowd voted, and Pluto won. On a vote done on National Geographic’s website People were given three options to choose from, one being Pro-Planet Pluto, one against it, and the other being the who cares make it a planet and let’s focus on real science. Of the three Pro-Planet Pluto won by an 11% margin. Not only is this debate a scientific one, it’s also one that the general population cares about, and while people can’t seem to agree on the fact that global warming is a thing, the majority seems to agree that Pluto should once more be a planet. “It seems to always wins the popular vote, except for that one time in 2006 when the International Astronomical Union redefined ‘planet’ and stripped Pluto of its planethood.” (in a Planet-or-Not Debate, Some Astronomers Say 'Long Live Planet Pluto’ National Geographic) So it seems that not only scientists wish Pluto’s planethood to be reinstated, but also the general population wishes for everyone’s favorite former planet to make a return to the planetary stage.
In 2006 when the IAU and namely Mike Brown, along with the charge of killing Pluto also seems to not know his Greek mythology from his Roaman, in 2006 when they demoted Pluto to justify it they had to come up with a definition for the word planet that excluded Pluto and other “dwarf planets.” The problem with this definition is that it is so specific and so convoluted just for the sake of not having a large number of planets in our solar system “‘That would be just too confusing’ [adding Pluto as a planet], argued... astronomer Gareth Williams, associate director of the IAU’s Minor Planet Center. ‘If you let Pluto stay, he said, you logically have to let the number of planets rise to 24 or 25’... ‘Do we want schoolchildren to have to remember so many? No, we want to keep the numbers low.’” This is the reasoning for Pluto’s demotion, not scientific reasoning, the definition was created for the sole purpose of excluding Pluto, the three qualifications in the definition are just justification for an unscientific desire to keep the number of planets at eight. Another thing taking away from the legitimacy of 2006’s IAU planet killing conference is what another scientist revealed. Gingerich, a scientist present at the IAU meeting said to TIME magazine “Just 424 of the organization’s nearly 10,000 members were present, and when the organizers offered the gathering the chance to reconsider Pluto’s demotion, Gingerich said, ‘they voted not to vote again because they wanted to go to lunch, so that was the end of it.’” (Lemonick, Michael D. "The People Have Voted: Pluto Is a Planet!" Time) The total lack of scientific due process done at this meeting should be reason enough to give Pluto its well deserved planetary wings, and possibly let in the rest of its icy bodied friends join the planetary family.
At a debate held in 2014 at Harvard, director of Harvard’s Planets and Life initiative said that “the word ‘planet’ does need a scientific definition, but that we don’t know enough yet to create one. ...we’ve discovered thousands of planets orbiting stars beyond the Sun, and until we can understand how they formed and what they’re really like, any definition is premature. Pluto may be a planet based on scientific reasoning, or it may not be. ‘For now, we should keep Pluto as a planet by default.’” (Lemonick, Michael D. "The People Have Voted: Pluto Is a Planet!" Time) The IAU’s ruling on Pluto’s planetary status should be revoked and Pluto readmitted to the family, with his Kuiper Belt friends. The fact is we are basing this definition on an unscientific desire to keep the number of planets in our own solar system and we are basing this ruling on our solar system alone. There are trillions of planets out there, with incredible variances and landscapes, orbital patterns, multiple moons, no moons, multiple suns, the combination of variables is limitless. The truth is we understand so little about the universe and planets themselves that an attempt to give them a scientific definition at this stage in the game is foolish and as the Director of Harvard’s Planet and Life Initiative said “Premature.” There are planets made of rock, there are planets made of gas, there are planets made of ice, there is a sun which burns at a temperature lower than the human body. The definition of a planet we have is using a very small sample group to define it and it is unscientific. These are the reasons why the IAU should revoke their ruling and reinstate Pluto as a planet.
well said.
ReplyDelete