Pluto Should be a Planet - Report Example

Pluto Should be a Planet Lyla Graham Friends Pluto should be a planet The general notion on planets is that there are nineplanets and several satellites within the solar system. To be specific, it is difficult for the public to consider that Pluto is no more a planet because scientific/technical parameter to define a celestial body results in utter confusion for the public. Besides, the decision cannot be considered as unanimous because the controversy based upon Pluto’s devalued status is still a burning issue between astronomy and public. Thesis statement: The IAU’s decision to change the older definition on the term “planet” and to degrade Pluto from its status as a planet is unreasonable because it is difficult for the public to change their ideas on planets, will alter the general understanding on planetary motion within our universe, but the effort to reconsider and redefine the current definition can exert positive effect on the public and those who decided to consider astronomy as profession because the IAU’s decision was not unanimous, but controversial declaration against Pluto. IAU v/s public First of all, the IAU’s decision cannot be considered as logical because the same is totally against the public understanding on planets. If you ask someone about planets, they will answer that there are nine planets and Pluto is one among those planets. Weintraub (2014) stated that, “If you are reading carefully, you will have noticed that according to the ancient Greeks, the Sun was a planet but the Earth was not!” (p. 3). Earlier, IAU recognized Pluto as the farthest planet in the universe. But now, the IAU authorities are not ready to accept this general understanding. Then, why did the schools and universities teach students that Pluto is one among the planets in the solar system? Was that a lie? The public is not ready to accept this unreasonable and illogical change in Pluto’s status. To be specific, IAU’s change in the understanding of Pluto is mere technical and the public is not ready to accept it. From a different angle of view, the IAU is responsible for the discontent within our civilization. So, the IAU must take initiatives to solve the problem related to the change in Pluto’s status. Unless, the IAU will be responsible for mass discontent and protest against this illogical decision. For instance, the decision taken by Illinois & New Mexico to defy the 2006 vote proves that people are not ready to accept this decision. Besides, Pluto’s fate proves that all the other planets are not safe and the IAU may change their understanding on planets and try to impose their understanding on people. Here, some may argue that IAU’s decision is based upon latest findings based upon scientific research within the field of astronomy. If, why did they accept Pluto as a dwarf planet? If they can accept it as a dwarf planet, why do not they accept it as a planet? The IAU authorities expect that the protestors are not organized and they cannot sustain their initial interest and urge to create awareness on Pluto’s devalued status. According to Marschall (2013), “But it makes little sense to declare that a dwarf planet is not a planet” (p.189). But IAU authorities underestimate the power of the public and are mocking at the public. This is not fair because an important decision- based upon scientific research-must be acceptable to all. If not, there is high scope for protest and criticism from the people. In short, the IAU authorities must try to communicate with the public and try to come up with an apt solution to resolve this problem. IAU’s definition on planet and general understanding The IAU declared that a celestial body must have certain qualities to be termed as a planet. For instance, its orbit must be strictly limited to the context of the Sun, it must be with enough mass, and it must show gravitational dominance upon other nearer celestial bodies. If a celestial body fulfills the first two terms/criteria, it will be considered as a dwarf planet, not as a planet. Kelly (2006) stated that, “Defined one way, Pluto would be “in,” as might be a good number of additional objects that are known or that maybe discovered; defined another way, Pluto might be “out,” and we would be left with just eight planets” (p.168). When the IAU authorities examined Pluto’s characteristics, it was evident that only two among the terms/criteria are applicable to Pluto. In the year 2006, the IAU authorities declared that Pluto cannot be recognized as a planet because the same does not fulfill their criteria. From IAU’s point out view, Pluto is not a planet, but a dwarf planet because it is not able to exert gravitational domination over nearer celestial bodies including its satellites. But even some astronomers are not ready to accept this definition and declaration because some other planets including earth do not fulfill the third criterion. For instance, there are so many asteroids in the Earth’s orbit and it does not have any gravitational dominance over those asteroids. If the IAU is ready to verify Earth’s status as a planet within the solar system, Earth cannot be considered as a planet. One can see that IAU’s definition must be applicable to all planets. Within this scenario, the IAU is not ready to apply its definition on the Earth and this is unfair. On the other side, IAU depends upon its definition to isolate Pluto from other planets and this is irrational. For sure, IAU’s definition will negatively impact the human understanding of universe because the division within the solar system as planets and dwarf planets in totally confusing. Lew (2009) stated that, “Some astronomers believed that if Pluto was a planet, then something larger and more massive than Pluto should be a planet, too” (p.38). One can see that it was an unwise effort from the side of the IAU to change the definition because it cannot be applied to all planets. If applied, human understanding on the universe must undergo change without any reason. Besides, the IAU is responsible to reconsider their decision because it attracted criticism based upon logical thinking. In short, the older definition is apt because it can be applied to all planets. On the other side, the new definition cannot be applied to all planets. Redefining definitions and astronomy profession Generally, those who accept astronomy as a profession consider the same as a personal interest and career interest. To be specific, interest in celestial bodies and the urge to unmask the secrets behind the universe is the catalyst behind the human interest towards astronomy. The new findings within the field of astronomy must accelerate an astronomer’s urge to go beyond the unknown. So as to bring forth innovation within the field of astronomy, there must be a constant definition for planets. But the current controversy based upon certain planets’ identity/status cannot result in innovation within this field of knowledge. Clarkin (2015) made clear that, “Southwest Kansas schoolchildren want the Legislature to declare the solar systems Pluto an official state symbol -- just as the sunflower and cottonwood tree are state symbols” (para.1). If there is a unanimously accepted definition, astronomers can compare their new findings with that definition. If not, new findings may create confusion among the astronomers because the definition itself is under criticism and one cannot expect an acceptable finding from a false definition. If the IAU is ready to redefine its definition, there is less scope for confusion and controversy based upon Pluto’s status. Besides, this can exert positive effect on astronomy profession. The astronomers must realize that the public is not interested in the new definition because the same neglects the past findings on solar system. The current controversy based on the definition is forcing astronomers to be the focal point of the problem. Then, they will be forced to express their opinions and it will reduce their productivity by involving in problem. So, the astronomers must be allowed to keep themselves away from the controversy and this initiative can help them to concentrate on their research within the scenario of astronomy. Now, some astronomers support the IAU and some other astronomers are not ready to accept IAU’s definition and the controversial decision on Pluto. This difference in the perception of the same definition can create confusion among those who are considering accepting astronomy as a profession. Besides, one can guess that most of the astronomers are forced to accept IAU’s definition because they are helpless to express their opinion on IAU’s unreasonable decision. From a different angle of view, the criticism and protest from the public may force the IAU authorities to change their definition. But Pluto’s status is constant because it is the farthest planet. So, the IAU must show courage to redefine their definition and this can reduce the scope of further criticism and protest from the public. Astronomy and controversial declaration against Pluto One can easily identify that IAU’s declaration was not unanimous and some scientists/astronomers within the scenario of astronomy are petitioning against this declaration. To be specific, the public is able to gain support from scientists/astronomers and the same proves that IAU’s declaration is unreasonable. Besides, the declaration proves that the IAU is not ready to provide importance to public interest and opinion. Those who support the IAU’s declaration are of the opinion that the same can help humanity to widen the outlook on solar system. To be specific, the current understanding on the solar system is based upon the older findings. Tuttle (2012) stated that, “In 1992, Alan Stern had written that hundreds or thousands of Pluto-size objects were out there, somewhere (Stern 1992), and now they were being found, bigger than comets, smaller than planets” (p.178). When the new findings are amalgamated to the older findings, the understanding will become different. But people are not ready to accept this because they are deeply influenced by the information gathered from text books and public opinion. If the IAU is ready to reconsider its declaration, the same will help to reduce the problem between the scientists/astronomers and the public. The public is not interested in the complications related to the definition. Instead, they are not ready to believe that an arbitrary standard can change a planet’s status. Besides, the public is curious about Pluto because the same is the farthest among the known planets within the solar system in general. This sort of curiosity, added with general belief/opinion, is forcing the public to consider that IAU’s declaration is unfair and the same cannot be accepted. As pointed out, the criteria to decide Pluto’s identity must be applicable to all planets within the solar system as a whole. But when the so called criteria (used upon Pluto) are used to determine the other planets’ status as planets, some planets cannot be considered as planets. For instance, all the other planets are comparatively smaller than Jupiter. Morison (2014) stated that, “Brown and his colleagues did not really believe that Pluto should be classed as a planet either” (p.68). If the IAU provides importance to size, all the planets, excluding Jupiter will be out focused. Similarly, all the planets are different in some way or other. Some planets as big, some are small, some planets are hot, some are cold etc. These differences are fundamental and cannot be changed. So, the IAU authorities must realize that the petitions against the controversial declaration prove that the public is totally against the declaration. In short, the best possible way for the IAU to solve this problem is to reconsider their declaration and to restore Pluto’s status. Summing up, the IAU’s declaration is totally against the public understanding on the solar system, especially the Pluto’s status. To be specific, IAU’s decision to change the criteria to define the status of a planet is not helpful for the public to accept the same on technical aspects within the scenario of astronomy. Within this scenario, the IAU authorities must show readiness to redefine the definition because this initiative can uplift the morale and confidence of those who consider astronomy as a profession. Besides, IAU and related astronomers know that their declaration attracts criticism. Still, they are not ready to change their decision because the same is based upon certain technical criteria within astronomy. So, it is better to redefine the definition and accept Pluto’s status as a planet. References Clarkin, M. (2015, Jan. 24). The Mission: Pluto. Hutchnews.com. Retrieved from http://www.hutchnews.com/news/local_state_news/the-mission-pluto/article_62c43ef1-4558-5356-b2a0-d84ac33c9e1a.html Kelly, K. (2006). Thats Not in My Science Book: A Compilation of Little-Known Facts. Maryland, MD: Taylor Trade Publications. Lew, K. (2009). The Dwarf Planet Pluto. New York, NY: Marshall Cavendish. Marschall, L.A. (2013). Pluto Confidential: An Insider Account of the Ongoing Battles over the Status of Pluto. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books. Morison, I. (2014). A Journey through the Universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tuttle, R.J. (2012). The Fourth Source: Effects of Natural Nuclear Reactors. Boca Raton, FL: Universal-Publishers. Weintraub, D.A. (2014). Is Pluto a Planet?: A Historical Journey through the Solar System. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Read More