Pluto and its Moons – Space Documentary 2019 [HD]

Views:91105|Rating:4.62|View Time:52:58Minutes|Likes:1019|Dislikes:84
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.”

You may also like...

39 Responses

  1. Manoochehr Ghanbari says: of the best

  2. Lewellah says:

    Fantastic documentary,

  3. Jesse Espinoza Jr says:

    Wow I love it.

  4. Raphael Quaglio says:

    The geek shall inherit fuck all.

  5. Marcus Dandaneau says:

    It's only a probe. No information will be revealed if anything important is found. They make it sound like a human life is on the line; like the god damn thing is alive. What a bunch of bull-shit. I'll be seein' your blood-sweat and tears in Hell.

  6. Mike Stevens says:

    btw , Nova is real data , science put into common words , I trust the BBC. and Nova , you can take scientific measurements off these pictures – it's the finest data in the world . also the nada data is that specific too , they don't alter it to trick you , they alter it so it's easy to see , and they proffered the raw data for contrast an compare ,tests . ask what they did they will look it up and show you how , exactly they did so . they make very few mistakes . very very very few. words don't cover math ideas well ,sometimes .this is the best , new data , also they have to fill an hour . do stars! c ya!

  7. Soulful Freedom Heart says:

    Can anyone mind telling me what the moon is?

  8. Aim High says:

    So they have to fly all the way to Pluto with out hitting a piece of sand they said huh sounds to good to be true.

  9. La va says:

    "Computer overload" Shaking my fucking head. Billions of dollars of tax money and that's what we get? Hell, Indians are launch fucking satellites often at a fraction of the cost. NASA is just an inefficient monolith.

  10. Marty Fly says:

    gay, dont watch

  11. pearlwhitebuffalo says:

    Old horizons are like understanding mass/volume displacements. The Greeks story of the Deluge of Zeus/Jupiter was that the oceans were emptied upon the earth & now an amature forensic video shows a chaotic recurring & overlapping blueprint found in our atmosphere that shows the debris that emptied the oceans upon the earth. SEE (Human Intervention 2018) on you tube. FORENSICS DON'T LIE

  12. Christof L says:

    It's amazing people still believe NASA's bullshit. The Sun's gravity has the strength to pull Pluto from trillions of miles away but is weak enough to not pull Mercury into it. These silly documentaries with the exciting music and dramatic commentary really keep the sheep believing.

  13. Bondy says:

    @ 11:20 Looks like underground tunnel activity.

  14. Daniel Rivers says:

    Amazing, but who's paying for these trips? Government tax money? Humm, on a chance…tons on money to trips around the world and on an airborne aircraft? Humm

  15. Larry Fields says:

    i would ;love to see part 2 to this exploration and wanna see the book

  16. Beat Conductor says:

    Seriously, what the fuck is this comment section.

  17. Lunastarling says:

    m.o.m. i love that 🙂

  18. Jason Cox says:

    How much money did it cost to the us tax payer for lookind for a rock to far away.
    NASA should be sending money on get back to the moon then mars before China.
    Look for rocks to far from earth really a waste of money.
    To the tax payer .
    NASA get the aerospace engine back and the X-33 back
    You know it's work

  19. homemark22 says:

    wow! 3 day fresh thanks for the upload

  20. Jerry K says:


  21. Wesley Mooney says:

    I have a 28in dob and many other telescopes and this is bs. I tell you the truth that the heavens are not void but water! Sick of the bs lies and deception with cgi and movie bs how they lie to the sheep. Read the ancient scripts about the firmament and how heavens opened to flood etc.

  22. Daniel Repetto says:

    “Miles an hour”…?

  23. ozzie321 says:

    Beautiful Pluto. We love you.

  24. Om Nom says:

    Way to dumb it down…. Just cause we don't work for Nasa doesn't mean we're derps.
    Most of everything said is pretty "duh" if you've paid even a fraction of attention to astronomy in the last 5-10 years.
    The examples are way too childish even for kids. It becomes painful to listen to. Boo.

  25. Cosmic Rider says:


  26. Isidro Cristobal Del Olmo says:

    Muy interesante 10-1-2019

  27. chris w says:

    bron6slaw 58-9166 134-58-9166 w6lson

  28. AuTo's Gaming says:

    A documentary that says 2019 thats actually from 2019 <3

  29. zack keso says:

    nice documentary.. Love it❤
    from Philippines

  30. sote ful says:

    Of course a female would put some stupid emotional child birth bond to a piece of machinery. She said "we call it baby." It was probably just her.

  31. godwantsplastic says:

    Instead of colonizing planets we should be customizing planets. Probably even customizing our entire solar system. How many earth like planets can we manufacture from the resources in our solar system? How many of these earths can fit within the habitable zone?

  32. clinton white says:


  33. Rafael Hernandez says:


  34. lifesentence says:

    The shitty forced drama. Ugh

  35. Corey Audet says:

    Just Awesome! Great Pride For This Human Achievement.

  36. A Doozer says:

    Pluto is hollow and is a cosmic bordello. True, I've been there a few times.

  37. A to Z Entertainment says:

    So excited for this

  38. Maestro Jack Slappy says:

    Too bad the Chinese stole the show by landing a spacecraft on the far side of the moon at just about the same time that this happened. 🙁

  39. samuel rosales says:

    What about planet nine

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *