A Speech on “Should Pluto Still Be Considered as A Planet?

Good (–) one and all present here. My name is (—) and I am here today to talk about whether or not Pluto should be considered as a planet. The international astronomical Union had brought down the status of Pluto from a planet to that of a dwarf planet as it had not met the three criteria used to define a full-sized planet.

Pluto means all criteria except one that is it has not cleared its neighboring region of other objects. According to the IAU, a dwarf planet is a celestial body that comes in the direct orbit of the Sun which is massive in that the shape of it is controlled by the forces of gravity rather than the forces of mechanical force. The three criteria that are required for a planet to be called full-size planet power is that it is in an Orbit around the sun, has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium, and has cleared the neighborhood around its Orbit. 

Pluto was discovered on February 18 1930 at the Global observatory in Arizona by an astronomer named Clyde W Tombaugh. This Discovery made headlines across the world. The Lowell observatory held the right to name the new object and received various suggestions from all over the world. The name Pluto was suggested by Venetia Burney.

It has been more than a decade since Pluto was brought down from the status of being the ninth planet in the solar system. There are some NASA administrators like Jim Bridenstine who want its status reinstated. Pluto was UN covered in detail by NASA’s New Horizon mission which was in 2015 July. Some NASA administrators are given that if these are the criteria that we have to use to examine or evaluate the planets all the planets would be called do of planets because there isn’t a planet that clear its entire orbit around the sun.

A planet should be defined based on its intrinsic value and not the values which constantly change such as orbital dynamics. Some people argue that a planet is just an object large enough to be spherical under its gravitational forces.

The scientist Bridenstine had published a paper called the reclassification of asteroids from planets to nonplanets and had explained that the asteroid was recognized by the scientists as a subset for planets for more than 150 years. He also argues that the fact that thousands of Asteroid share orbits are irrelevant to planet status.

He also argues that asteroids were reclassified as non-planets based on geophysical characteristics. Terms such as planet are determined by scientific processes and not voting which is what happened with the decision of IAU in 2006 over the planet Pluto. According to him, “We suggest attempts to build consensus around planetary taxonomy not rely on the non-scientific process of voting, but rather through precedent set in scientific literature and discourse, by which perspectives evolve with additional observations and information, just as they did in the case of asteroids.” Thank you to one and all.

Similar Posts: