If you woke up Thursday morning and sensed something was different about the world around you, you're absolutely right. Pluto is no longer a planet.
The International Astronomical Union, wrapping up its meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, has resolved one of the most hotly-debated topics in the cosmos by approving a specific definition that gives our solar system eight planets, instead of the nine most of us grew up memorizing.
. . . .
Here's how it all shakes out. The International Astronomical Union has decided that, to be called a planet, an object must have three traits. It must orbit the sun, be massive enough that its own gravity pulls it into a nearly round shape, and be dominant enough to clear away objects in its neighborhood.
. . . .
Despite the establishment of these three distinct categories, there are bound to be gray areas. As technologies improve and more objects are found, the International Astronomical Union will set up a process to decide which categories are most appropriate for specific objects.
. . . .
Although the revamping of our solar system might seem unsettling, it's really nothing new. In fact, when Ceres was first discovered in 1801, it was called a planet, as were several similar objects found later. But when the count kept on growing, astronomers decided "enough is enough," and they demoted Ceres and its siblings, placing them in a new category, called asteroids.
(from "Honey, I Shrunk the Solar System" from nasa.gov)
To Be, or Not To Be – A Planet: That is The Question
Trying to identify whether or not Pluto is a planet may have caused more angst than answers. A committee of astronomers and historians has proposed new guidelines as to what constitutes a "planet." The change ultimately increases the number of planets from 9 to 12 but has left many wanting more answers.
"It is ludicrous," said John Terner of the Association of Astronomical Sciences. "We are looking for more clarity and all we have gotten is a definition that is more ambiguous."
Based on the proposed definition, the number of planets would increase. There are currently 53 objects that meet the criteria of a planet and probably many more than that. However, the much contested Pluto does not make the cut.
Although many agree that one of the great things about space discovery is that it is an ever-changing, fluid science, they also feel that changing the definition of a planet is rash and not well-thought-out.
"This definition is not what we are looking for. With four paragraphs and four footnotes, this definition reads more like a legal brief than a science discovery," said Beverly Johnson of the Scientists for Change Association based in Prague.
Everyone agrees that clarity is needed when it comes to what is and is not a planet in our solar system. However, those involved in the development say that more specifics are needed but that the working definition has come a long way and is a great stride forward.
Question
Which ,begin emphasis,best,end emphasis, contrasts how the new definition for a planet is regarded by scientists in both passages?
Answer options with 4 options
1.
In Passage 1 it is argued that the definition has not been as useful as it was initially expected to be, and in Passage 2 there appears to be a lot of celebration around the exclusion of Pluto as a planet.
2.
In Passage 1 it is argued that the definition is another positive development in space discovery, whereas in Passage 2 it is argued that there needs to be an effort towards making the definition more clear.
3.
In Passage 1 the view is that the world has forever changed because of the new definition of a planet, but in Passage 2 the view is that space discovery is now stuck in the past.
4.
In Passage 1 the view is that the definition has confused the majority of people, whereas is Passage 2 the view is that this new definition is the first step forward in over one hundred years.