But do yourself a favor and read both sides of this issue before making up your mind. A good book supporting Pluto's planet status is Dr. David Weintraub's "Is Pluto A Planet?"
There are several problems with Tyson's presentation. One is that by using a title like "the rise and fall," he is misleading people into believing this debate is over. It is not. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the 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.
Tyson contradicts himself in the book, on the one hand disavowing any connection with the IAU decision and describing it as "flawed," while on the other citing it to vindicate his decision in designing the Rose Center.
Tyson also ignores the fact that the IAU definition states that dwarf planets are not planets at all, which makes no sense and is inconsistent with the use of the term "dwarf" in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies.
Pluto is not more like the other icy bodies in the Kuiper Belt than like the planets for one crucial reason: it is spherical, meaning it is large enough for its own gravity to pull itself into a round shape. This state, known as hydrostatic equilibrium, is a characteristic of planets and not of shapeless asteroids and KBOs. Yes, in some ways, Pluto is similar to the smaller Kuiper Belt Objects, but ignoring hydrostatic equilibrium blurs an important distinction.
Pluto is BOTH a planet and a Kuiper Belt Object. Much of the controversy could be resolved if the IAU amended its resolution to include dwarf planets as a subclass of planets.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Pluto is a planet
Date: 2009-03-08 01:01 am (UTC)There are several problems with Tyson's presentation. One is that by using a title like "the rise and fall," he is misleading people into believing this debate is over. It is not. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the 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.
Tyson contradicts himself in the book, on the one hand disavowing any connection with the IAU decision and describing it as "flawed," while on the other citing it to vindicate his decision in designing the Rose Center.
Tyson also ignores the fact that the IAU definition states that dwarf planets are not planets at all, which makes no sense and is inconsistent with the use of the term "dwarf" in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies.
Pluto is not more like the other icy bodies in the Kuiper Belt than like the planets for one crucial reason: it is spherical, meaning it is large enough for its own gravity to pull itself into a round shape. This state, known as hydrostatic equilibrium, is a characteristic of planets and not of shapeless asteroids and KBOs. Yes, in some ways, Pluto is similar to the smaller Kuiper Belt Objects, but ignoring hydrostatic equilibrium blurs an important distinction.
Pluto is BOTH a planet and a Kuiper Belt Object. Much of the controversy could be resolved if the IAU amended its resolution to include dwarf planets as a subclass of planets.