Mass Perplexity

Words: 898
Pages: 4

The criteria of what determines a planet has been a controversial topic being argued and debated for years. The differing ideas of what determines a planet has recently changed, now excluding Pluto as a planet, and now down-grading it to a dwarf planet. This abrupt change is still confused with many citizens of the world today, and without a proper discussion on the topic, mass perplexity will continue as if it were a plague. This could all be changed if people were informed and were able to use similar strategies to find solutions to problems that were not easy; and we did just that. A group of three individuals had the same problem of finding out what criteria determined a planet, simply based off of argument. We were very successful, and …show more content…
(This, later on will be used to break down arguments made by others and scanty evidence.) Moving on, to prove our claims that the object must orbit the central star, this is backed up by differentiating a moon from a planet; a planet orbits the central star, and if it were to orbit another object in the system, it would be considered a moon-no matter how large. Our second criteria, the object’s shape, must be spherical or else it would show that it didn’t have a substantial amount of mass that would produce enough gravity to pull itself into a spherical shape, declassifying itself as a planet. Lastly, an object must have an orbital zone clear of other similar sized objects because it is telltale sign that the object is large enough to sort of “conquer” other objects in its area. This is also important because it backs up our claim of an object having a spherical shape since it shows the object would have to have enough gravity to consume other objects or turn them into moons. This point was added to criteria (in the real world) recently and that’s why Pluto was excluded as a planet in our solar …show more content…
We found there were only three significant factors, and the next segment will consist of debunking misconceptions of using these pieces of evidence as criteria. The distance of the object from the star isn’t important because all of the objects are far enough away from the star that they wouldn’t be consumed from the gravitational force of the star. As long as an object is far enough away from the star to not be “sucked in” from the star, it is just fine. Remember: the discussion isn’t about habitability, it’s about meeting guidelines; this is mentioned because it would be extremely deadly to be so close to a star, but it could still be considered a planet nonetheless. The next borderline piece of evidence is diameter, and its poor evidence to back it up as being a factor in determining planet hood. Although it may appear plausible in some circumstances, it is wrong, stemming from the rigidness it implies. If there were to be a determined number, the first question is “what would the number be”, and the second would be “if it were to be slightly under that number, would it still be a planet?” (Number- meaning the minimum diameter to be “checked off” under this requirement.) Some may say 5000 kilometers would be appropriate for a cut off, but there is no supporting evidence for making the number there, and it would only eliminate one extra