Should Pluto be the Ninth Planet? - Argumentative Essay

Introduction

The International Astronomical Union in 2006 was accredited with the demotion of Pluto from characterization as a planet to its newfound status as a dwarf planet. Prior to the formal confirmation and harmonization of what characterized a planet by the union, deliberations abounded within scholarly quarters, and popular planetary literature depicted Pluto in various ways, the majority as a planet. Notwithstanding, the popular planetary theory was often disabused, albeit inconclusively by other cultural cosmologies. This apparent confusion stemmed from the lack of a standard formal definition of the term planet. Previously, the term planet encompassed various meanings, in this regard; Pluto was also considered a planet. This paper examines the intricacies surrounding the definition of Pluto as one of the planets and its subsequent demotion to the status of a dwarf planet. Moreover, it presents the probable notion of whether the definition of a planet should be modified under the planetary fields, to characterize Pluto under the same.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The resolution to strip Pluto of its status as a planet is divisive in many fields, particularly within the planetary sciences. However, it is significant to give credence to the myriad scientific and technological advancements that have formed this decision. According to Zhang and Zhao (2015), the era of big data has enabled sharing and comparisons of extensive astronomy data which further gives credibility to the studies that identify the unique characteristics of Pluto. Astronomers employing these advancements have observed that Pluto exhibits characteristics which were unique. Noteworthy, Pluto seemed to exist in a region of its own. The fact that Pluto distinctively shows its individual space characteristics supports its declassification as a regular planet (Ksanfomality, 2016). In hindsight, the support of this postulation also borrows from the astronomical fact that other thousands of celestial bodies have been discovered, exhibiting characteristics similar to Pluto. Hence, the further classification of Pluto as the tenth member of the classical planets presents the dilemma of whether to include the other discovered celestial bodies like planets, as no formal definition of the term planet excluded the bodies. As thus, the demotion of Pluto was a disruptive astronomical discourse, which was well a necessity to bring forth order in the planetary sciences.

Pluto's demotion as one of the classical planets is strongly justified by astronomical data that strikingly contrasts Pluto from the other planets. Pluto's size is remarkable in comparison to the other planets. Its size is way less than half that of any planets a characteristic that strikingly points out the difference between Pluto and the other nine classical planets. Moreover, the physical structure of Pluto greatly differs from that of the other planets in its proximal distance. Pluto comprises of rock and ice while the planets close to it are gaseous. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are the planets closest to Jupiter and are the biggest planets in the solar system. Uniquely, Pluto was considered a classical planet yet, albeit being oddly smaller than its neighboring planets. These odd differences are a strong justification for the resolution of the International Astronomical Union to propose a new classification system for other bodies which like Pluto exhibited unusual characteristics (Kohler, 2016). As a result, Pluto's reclassification as a dwarf planet ensued, categorizing it as a member of the minor planets together with the other considerably large KBOs.

Furthermore, Pluto exhibits an orbit path that is very much unlike that of the other planets. Over and above, while the rest of the other classical planets assume the orbit of the sun, in a path depicting an imaginary for the planet, and almost circular orbit, Pluto's orbit path is tilted and non-circular. Interestingly, Pluto's orbit path infringes into Neptune's and implies that certain periods of its revolution, it is theoretically closer to the sun than Neptune (Kohler, 2016). Moreover, in regards to Pluto's existence and astronomical behavior, it exhibits more characteristics that astoundingly further contrast it to the other nine classical planets. As usual in the solar system, each planet pulls matter within its orbit due to gravitational force. As a result, the planets have fewer objects about their orbit. Pluto, however, has numerous objectives within its orbit, possibly thousands of objects. These objects are icy and rock like with some of the objects probably bigger than Pluto. The area where the objects are found is referred to as the Kuiper belt in planetary science, and the more massive objects found in this region together with Pluto are known as trans-Neptunian objects (Powell, 2017). In hindsight, had this area been astronomically discovered before the 1930's, Pluto's status as a real planet would not have come to fruition

The demotion and following definition of Pluto and the other trans-Neptune objects as dwarf planets was inherently a paradigm shift in planetary sciences. Significantly, the resolution meant that the flexibility of the term planet would be definitive instead of the global norm of affixing no conformity within the astronomy communities. The IAU resolution limited the definition of what entailed a planet from their original proposition which stated that a planet was any round object orbiting a star. Under this definition, the term planet encompassed many celestial bodies (Brozovic et al., 2015). The new resolution included a twist into the description by limiting the term to include only objects which were round had dominance over their orbital paths. Due to the existence of the KBOs within Pluto's orbital path, it fails to satisfy the second criterion (Brozovic et al., 2015).

The matter of Pluto's demotion has not been devoid of outright opposition and unwavering criticism. Many people, including the astronomy circles, were and are still skeptic about the resolution. Firstly, the greatest reservations to the acceptance of the decision are advanced by people who see neither cultural nor scientific significance to the whole process. Evidence of such dissuasion is awash in both the media and the confusion still being witnessed in curricula a decade after the unions meeting. The ensuing dissuasion was entirely expected, as precedented by the disagreements during the union's deliberations whether to demote Pluto or maintain the status quo. Also, within the astronomy literature, there is the existence of various classification systems all which were employed by the committee's members during the conference. Akin to any other scientific discipline, varying systems and theories are necessary to explain various phenomena.

Opposition to the resolution to demote Pluto as a planet and categorize it as a dwarf planet have significantly questioned the rationale employed. The IAU definition of Pluto is quite a contradiction. The fact that there are other numerous dwarf planets presents a paradigm shift of whether to demote other planets which exhibit unique characteristics as not being a classical planet. Importantly, the opposition to the demotion cites the scientist's own volition to categorize Pluto, a process that disregarded the natural order. In support of this fact, the opposition cites the Earths uniqueness in the solar system which in accordance to the newfound paradigm shift of classifying planets should be considered a misfit in the solar system and accorded a new status. To advance the new resolution of eradicating the flexibility that existed within the planetary sciences of the definition of a planet, the new order should keenly explore the nine planets and uniquely categorize the misfits.

In the triennial meeting to establish Pluto as a dwarf planet, criticism has been leveled against the scientists who deliberated whether to demote Pluto to the new category of dwarf planets. Initially, the IAU had intended to consider the public's input in their consideration. However, the committee tasked with the resolution solely employed science and physical nature as the foundation of their resolution. In essence, the committee actively invoked the authority of science and in the process eliminating, social influence in a scientific practice that spelled serious social implications. In as much as the committee's work was also culturally and historically defined, their scope was greatly minimized to the role of making a proposition for a new nomenclature, pluton to make a description for a new category of objects as defined by planetary sciences.

The decision to deregister Pluto as a member of the classical planets' family was a decision left to a small representation of the world's scientists. A decision of such a profound magnitude and implication in the Astronomy field at least required a considerable amount of input from many planetary scientists and astronomers. Instead, the committee hastily arrived at a decision without much thought as the time according to the resolution was quite limited. Moreover, to advance a more acceptable approach to the matter, the committee's decision should have encompassed views and opinions of a majority of the world's astronomers and planetary scientists. The committee's modus operandi of voting on the issue also outlined significant flaws in their resolution. It showed that the matter was quite controversial as the divisiveness in the committee was presented. The reservation with the decision even among the members of the committee was a projection of the disruption that the decision would make socially and scientifically.

Conclusion

In summary, Pluto's declassification as a real planet and into the category of a dwarf planet was though disruptive within astronomy, and planetary sciences was a necessary action. Astronomy and planetary literature exhibited contrasting views on the subject and thus a formal definition to harmonize the subject were required. Moreover, the vague classification of Pluto as one of the dominant planets opened aa probable disruption in the established order as the other KBOs also qualified to be categorized as planets as much as Pluto was considered one. In this regard, there would be a significant challenge in Astronomy for all the planets to be named and uniquely identified let alone their inclusion in various global curricula owing to the plethora of bodies that would be considered planets. In contrast, the opposition to the resolution base their dissuasion on the manner in which the process was undertaken as various underlying factors like social and cultural cosmology were outrightly disregarded. Moreover, they question the necessity of the action as there existed various other conflicting schools of thoughts, which all eventually advanced studies and research in astronomy. In hindsight, I think that the classification of Pluto as a dwarf planet is justified in light of the convincing variations in characteristics it exhibits. Also, the redefinition of the term planet to encompass Pluto is a move that would spell more confusion and thus should not be advanced.

References

Brozovic, M., Showalter, M. R., Jacobson, R. A., & Buie, M. W. (2015). The orbits and masses of satellites of Pluto. Icarus, 246, 317-329.

Kohler, S. (2016). A Ninth Planet in Our Solar System? AAS Nova Highlights.

Ksanfomality, L. V. (2016). Pluto: Dwarf planet 134340. Solar System Research, 50(1), 67-80.

Powell, J. (2017). Minor Planets and Asteroids. In Cosmic Debris (pp. 19-42). Springer, Cham.

Zhang, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2015). Astronomy in the big data era. Data Science Journal, 14.