tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18645047.post6970427112683839525..comments2022-11-12T10:54:14.856-06:00Comments on Book Reviews for Real People: The Pluto Files (Neil deGrasse Tyson)Maria Duncanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10654203953091709733noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18645047.post-11426356455617074272009-06-13T19:24:03.309-05:002009-06-13T19:24:03.309-05:00If you ask me, and I realize nobody actually did a...If you ask me, and I realize nobody actually did ask me, demoting Pluto could be pretty dangerous. After all Pluto was in charge of Hades. I don't think we should mess with him by dissing his planet. All hell could break loose, assuming it hasn't frozen over since Pluto is so far from the sun.<br /><br />If Pluto isn't a planet any longer does that mean we have to rename Plutonium?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06546840413431176072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18645047.post-73484368027688616202009-06-13T18:56:38.469-05:002009-06-13T18:56:38.469-05:00Your initial instincts were right. There are stron...Your initial instincts were right. There are strong scientific reasons for keeping Pluto classified as a planet. It is important to note that Tyson has distanced himself from the controversial 2006 IAU decision, which he himself admits is flawed. At this point, he even admits that the debate is not over, that it might be too early in the study of planetary scientists for anyone to be defining what a planet is in the first place. This was pretty much his message at the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, which he moderated at the American Museum of Natural History on March 10, 2009. <br /><br />Significantly, only four percent of the IAU voted on Pluto's demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately rejected by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto.<br /><br />Stern and like-minded scientists favor a broader planet definition that includes any non-self-luminous spheroidal body in orbit around a star. The spherical part is important because objects become spherical when they attain a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning they are large enough for their own gravity to pull them into a round shape. This is a characteristic of planets and not of shapeless asteroids and Kuiper Belt Objects. Pluto meets this criterion and is therefore a planet, as are Haumea, Makemake and Eris in the Kuiper Belt and Ceres in the asteroid belt. This characteristic differentiates these bodies from the many others in those belts.<br /><br />This debate is far from over. For another perspective, anyone interested in this topic should read "Is Pluto A Planet" by Dr. David Weintraub. Also, please visit my Pluto blog, which discusses the scientific reasons for Pluto maintaining its planet status and chronicles worldwide efforts to overturn the demotion, at http://laurele.livejournal.com<br /><br />Alan Boyle is writing a book "The Case for Pluto," which will be out in October 2009, and I also plan on writing a book about Pluto, which will be out sometime in the next few years. Please make sure to consider both sides before taking a stand on this issue.Laurel Kornfeldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02387883186244337619noreply@blogger.com