Sing along if you know the words: When the moon hits your eye, like a big pizza

pie, that's a
planet!

That's what ancient Greek stargazers thought, anyway. And according to a team of astronomers
writing online Aug. 29 in the journal Icarus, maybe it's time we started thinking of Earth's trusty
satellite — plus demoted dwarf planets like Pluto and Ceres — as a full-fledged planets once
again.

That might sound odd, but it's well within the consensus established by centuries of scientific
literature, the new study argues. The authors of that study scoured more than 200 years of
scientific research to try to answer two simple questions: What makes a planet, according to the
scientific community; and does that definition fall in line with the criteria that the International
Astronomical Union (IAU) used in 2006 when they famously stripped Pluto of its planethood? [Top
10 Amazing Moon Facts]

The IAU's judgment on Pluto (and therefore all celestial bodies seeking planethood) does not
speak for the scientific community, the authors determined.

There are 120 examples I found of scientists in the recent published literature violating the IAU
definition, calling something a planet even though the IAU definition says it's not a planet," lead
study author Philip Metzger, a planetary scientist at the University of Central Florida, told
NBCNews.com. "The reason planetary scientists do this is because the IAU definition is not useful
for science."

What makes a planet?

After 76 years of textbook planet status, Pluto was demoted to a dwarf planet in 2006 when the
IAU voted that the icy orb failed to meet a set of criteria established by decades of scientific
literature.

To be a planet, they said, Pluto must: 1) Orbit the sun; 2) Be massive enough to it pull itself into a
sphere shape under its own gravity; 3) "Clear its neighborhood" of debris and other celestial
bodies, proving it has gravitational dominance in its corner of the solar system.

Pluto fails that third criterion. Because it orbits in the Kuiper Belt — a massive ring of asteroids and
planetoids that stretches beyond the orbit of Neptune — Pluto is surrounded by thousands of other
celestial bodies and hunks of debris, each exerting its own gravity. Pluto, then, is not the
gravitationally dominant object in its neighborhood — and therefore, the IAU said, not a full-
fledged planet.

According to Metzger and his colleagues, however, that third bit of the criterion is unnecessarily
narrow — and not reflected in the consensus of past research. After looking at hundreds of
published astronomy papers going back to the 1800s, the researchers found that, while most
writers agreed that planets should be spherical and orbit the sun, the "clearing the neighborhood"
rule appeared only in a single 1801 paper.

The researchers concluded that this Pluto-excluding rule is "arbitrary and not based on historical
precedent," and should be therefore ignored when defining any present or future planet-size
objects in our universe.

"When Galileo described the moons of Jupiter, he described them as planets," study co-author
Kirby Runyon, a planetary geologist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
told NBCNews.com. "So, the actual historical precedent is to consider round worlds that orbit other
planets as planets, too. And we consider dwarf planets to be full-fledged planets."
By this revised standard Pluto is a planet. So is Earth's moon, and the moons of Jupiter and
Saturn. That's a controversial view that has already garnered some astro-criticism — and the
study authors are fine with that. If anyone disagrees with their assessment, the researchers wrote,
it should be up to the consensus of scientific literature to change it, not a vote by a single authority
like the IAU.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
It's been 12 years since everyone's favourite dwarf planet Pluto officially lost planet status. And
ever since there's been no end to the debate over whether or not that was the right call.

Now a team of experts say the reason it was demoted in the first place isn't valid. And, you
guessed it, they're calling for Pluto's planet title to be restated.

Pluto was officially declassified as a planet by the International Astronomical Union in August
2006, after the global group of astronomy experts updated the requirements of what makes a
planet, adding a third criteria.

The new definition states:

"A celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to
overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and
(c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit."

That third criteria means an object has to be the dominant body in its orbital path with enough
mass to either recruit or bump out any other space rocks in the area.

While Pluto ticked off the first two requirements for being a planet, it fell short of clearing its orbit,
which it shares with a whole bunch of Kuiper belt bodies.

But a new study published on Wednesday claims that this last criterion isn't supported by the
scientific literature.

After reviewing published research from the past 200 years, a team of researchers from the
University of Central Florida found only one publication in 1802 that used the clearing-orbit
requirement to classify planets. And that was based on reasoning that went on to be disproven.

"The IAU definition would say that the fundamental object of planetary science, the planet, is
supposed to be a defined on the basis of a concept that nobody uses in their research," says first
author Philip Metzger. "And it would leave out the second-most complex, interesting planet in our
Solar System."

On top of that, the team found scientists have routinely called moons such as Saturn's Titan and
Jupiter's Europa planets since the time of Galileo.

"We now have a list of well over 100 recent examples of planetary scientists using the word planet
in a way that violates the IAU definition, but they are doing it because it's functionally useful," says
Metzger.

"It's a sloppy definition ... They didn't say what they meant by clearing their orbit. If you take that
literally, then there are no planets, because no planet clears its orbit."

Metzger says that when the IAU made the change in 2006 it was claimed that orbit-clearing was a
standard definition used to distinguish asteroids from planets by scientists. But this review shows
that isn't the case.
"We showed that this is a false historical claim," says co-author Kirby Runyon from Johns Hopkins
University Applied Physics Laboratory. "It is therefore fallacious to apply the same reasoning to
Pluto."

The team argues that a planet should be defined based on intrinsic properties, rather than ones
that can change - such as the dynamics of its orbit.

"Dynamics are not constant, they are constantly changing," says Metzger. "So, they are not the
fundamental description of a body, they are just the occupation of a body at a current era."

Instead, they recommend classifying a planet based simply on if its large enough that its gravity
allows it to become spherical in shape.

"And that's not just an arbitrary definition," says Metzger. "It turns out this is an important
milestone in the evolution of a planetary body, because apparently when it happens, it initiates
active geology in the body."

For example, Pluto has an underground ocean, a multilayer atmosphere, organic compounds,
evidence of ancient lakes and multiple moons, says Metzger.

"It's more dynamic and alive than Mars," he says. "The only planet that has more complex geology
is the Earth."

But of course, this new paper isn't going to end the debate any time soon.

As astrophysicist and Forbes science columnist Ethan Siegel wrote last year, the problem is
bigger than just whether or not Pluto clears its orbit, but where it's located in the Solar System:

"When it comes to planetary status, geophysics isn't enough. In astronomy, the three rules of real
estate also apply: location, location, location."

"There's something very meaningful about our place in the Solar System that makes Earth a
planet and Pluto not-a-planet. If we're being honest about our Solar System and the number of
planets within it, there are very clearly eight objects that are different from all the others."

Still, as long as the debate continues, we will hold out hope. Watch this space, we're sure the
other camp will publish a response soon.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

The reason Pluto lost its planet status is not valid, according to new research from the University
of Central Florida in Orlando.

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union, a global group of astronomy experts, established a
definition of a planet that required it to "clear" its orbit, or in other words, be the largest
gravitational force in its orbit.

Since Neptune's gravity influences its neighboring planet Pluto, and Pluto shares its orbit with
frozen gases and objects in the Kuiper belt, that meant Pluto was out of planet status. However, in
a new study published online Wednesday in the journal Icarus, UCF planetary scientist Philip
Metzger, who is with the university's Florida Space Institute, reported that this standard for
classifying planets is not supported in the research literature.
Metzger, who is lead author on the study, reviewed scientific literature from the past 200 years and
found only one publication -- from 1802 -- that used the clearing-orbit requirement to classify
planets, and it was based on since-disproven reasoning.

He said moons such as Saturn's Titan and Jupiter's Europa have been routinely called planets by
planetary scientists since the time of Galileo.

"The IAU definition would say that the fundamental object of planetary science, the planet, is
supposed to be a defined on the basis of a concept that nobody uses in their research," Metzger
said. "And it would leave out the second-most complex, interesting planet in our solar system."
"We now have a list of well over 100 recent examples of planetary scientists using the word planet
in a way that violates the IAU definition, but they are doing it because it's functionally useful," he
said. "It's a sloppy definition," Metzger said of the IAU's definition. "They didn't say what they
meant by clearing their orbit. If you take that literally, then there are no planets, because no planet
clears its orbit."

The planetary scientist said that the literature review showed that the real division between planets
and other celestial bodies, such as asteroids, occurred in the early 1950s when Gerard Kuiper
published a paper that made the distinction based on how they were formed.

However, even this reason is no longer considered a factor that determines if a celestial body is a
planet, Metzger said.

Study co-author Kirby Runyon, with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in
Laurel, Maryland, said the IAU's definition was erroneous since the literature review showed that
clearing orbit is not a standard that is used for distinguishing asteroids from planets, as the IAU
claimed when crafting the 2006 definition of planets.

"We showed that this is a false historical claim," Runyon said. "It is therefore fallacious to apply the
same reasoning to Pluto," he said. Metzger said that the definition of a planet should be based on
its intrinsic properties, rather than ones that can change, such as the dynamics of a planet's orbit.
"Dynamics are not constant, they are constantly changing," Metzger said. "So, they are not the
fundamental description of a body, they are just the occupation of a body at a current era."

Instead, Metzger recommends classifying a planet based on if it is large enough that its gravity
allows it to become spherical in shape.

"And that's not just an arbitrary definition, Metzger said. "It turns out this is an important milestone
in the evolution of a planetary body, because apparently when it happens, it initiates active
geology in the body."

Pluto, for instance, has an underground ocean, a multilayer atmosphere, organic compounds,
evidence of ancient lakes and multiple moons, he said.

"It's more dynamic and alive than Mars," Metzger said. "The only planet that has more complex
geology is the Earth."

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Central Florida. Original written by Robert H. Wells. Note:
Content may be edited for style and length.
Journal Reference:

1. Philip T. Metzger, Mark V. Sykes, Alan Stern, Kirby Runyon. The Reclassification of
Asteroids from Planets to Non-Planets. Icarus, 2018; DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.08.026

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Characteristics: Does Pluto fit the characteristics of a planet?

Yes

• Pluto shares many characteristics with the other 8 planets: Robert

Naeye, Senior Editor for SkyTonight.com "The Case for Pluto" 9/6/06 -
"Its spherical shape, multiplicity of moons, and an atmosphere are
properties that give it some commonality with the official 8 solar
system planets."

NPR "Is Pluto Too Puny to Be a Planet?" 8/14/06 - "There are valid
arguments to call Pluto a planet. It has an atmosphere, it goes through
seasons, and it has three moons."

• Pluto's planetary characteristics diverge in just the same way as

other planets. Robert Naeye, Senior Editor for SkyTonight.com "The
Case for Pluto" 9/6/06 - "Clearly, Pluto is a different type of object than
the 8 solar system planets in the official IAU definition. But if we look at
those 8, we see an extreme range of diversity as well. Mercury and
Jupiter differ in mass by a factor of 5,750, and in volume by 25,000.
Their compositions could hardly be more different. Jupiter's
composition is more like that of a star; it's a giant ball of mostly
hydrogen and helium. It also has a family of at least 63 moons, and
several tenuous rings. In contrast, Mercury is a ball made of heavy
elements, with no appreciable atmosphere and zero moons. Mercury is
more than 13 times closer to the Sun. About all that Jupiter and
Mercury have in common is that they are spherical objects orbiting the
Sun. So if astronomers are comfortable lumping Jupiter and Mercury
into the same category, it's not at all obvious that Pluto should be
excluded from this club...If Mercury and Jupiter are considered similar
enough to fall under the same category, it's not crazy or unscientific to
think that Pluto should also be included, especially since Pluto shares
the same properties with Jupiter and Mercury that give these two
objects their commonality."

• Objects within other astronomical categories often diverge

substantially. Robert Naeye, Senior Editor for SkyTonight.com "The
 Case for Pluto" 9/6/06 - "Let's consider three other classes of
astronomical objects — galaxies, stars, and black holes — and we'll see
an even greater diversity of characteristics, and we will see that these
categories are not based on an object's location or gravitational
influence." See the article for Naeye's arguments on galaxies, stars, and
black holes

• A "planet" should not have to "dominate" its locality. Robert Naeye,

Senior Editor for SkyTonight.com "The Case for Pluto" 9/6/06 - "If
astronomers don't make a distinction based on location, mass, and size
for galaxies, stars, and black holes, why should planets be different?
Why should it matter whether a spherical object orbiting a star can
clear out its zone of space? A galaxy is a galaxy whether it dominates its
cluster or is being devoured by a bigger galaxy. A star is a star whether
it's alone, inside a cluster, or part of a binary. Just because a 50-solar-
mass star can't eject a red-dwarf binary companion doesn't mean that
we stop calling it a star! As described above, astronomers have
historically categorized almost all classes of objects by their properties,
not their locations.

• "Planets" should not have to "clear" their area. David Tholen,

Astronomer at the University of Hawaii's Institute for Astronomy
11/06 - "The problem with the IAU definition is that it will not be
possible to apply it to a newly discovered object in the distant reaches
of the solar system. Suppose someone discovers a 24th magnitude
(very faint) object with a nearly circular orbit 500 times the distance of
Earth from the Sun. It may be as large as Earth, but we would have no
information on whether it has cleared its zone, so the question as to
whether it is a planet could not be answered, which I suspect would be
objectionable to the public."