According to a new study by the University of Florida’s Space Institute, a systematic examination of the scientific literature shows that the decision in 2006 that Pluto, the farthest planet in the solar system, lost its status as a mine, should be revised.
According to Galileo Galilei, the father of astronomy, a celestial body can be considered a planet if it has a detectable geological function, that is, it changes. This definition is contained in Appendix XX. It was enough until the beginning of the 20th century, but then a surprising factor came into the picture: the sudden rise in the popularity of calendars and yearbooks.
This is an important period in history, because at that time the general opinion agreed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice versa, with the emergence of the definition of planets from astrology.
– In an article published in Icarus magazine.
While the moons and asteroids met Galileo’s definition, astrology and annual weather predictions inspired by astrology required a sufficient number of planets. According to the current definition, a planet revolving around the Sun has enough gravity to take on a spherical shape and, by its gravity, remove similarly sized celestial bodies revolving near its orbit.
As more and more people in the scientific community shifted to Galileo’s geological definition by the 1960s, proponents of the prevailing almanac definition also hardened. Pluto could not meet the last criteria, an orderly orbit, but according to the study, all this work has a pseudo-scientific impact.
If the International Astronomical Union (IAU) veered around the Florida experts’ argument and rehabilitated Galileo, we’d never get Pluto back. According to the old definition, the solar system will grow by about 150 planets, in addition to the moons of Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune, the distant dwarf planets such as Eris, Sedna, Orcus and Ceres will advance to planets.
“Social media evangelist. Baconaholic. Devoted reader. Twitter scholar. Avid coffee trailblazer.”