The planet formerly known as Pluto

[Dadonthego]

I couldn't put this down. I liked how he weaved the story of his life in with discovering objects beyond Pluto. It is technical without being technical. He also explains why, right or wrong, Pluto is not a planet.

[Trike]

I also enjoyed it as well.

I utterly disagree with his rationalization for downgrading Pluto from planet status because it's nonsensical. The excuse of, "Well, if we called everything that became a sphere under its own gravity a planet, we'd have hundreds of them," is pretty weaksauce if you ask me. So what? Kids would still only learn the big planets. We could even call them "Major Planets" and call everything else a minor planet.

That said, it is an entertaining if aggravating read.

[Lily]

Dadonthego wrote: "I couldn't put this down. I liked how he weaved the story of his life in with discovering objects beyond Pluto. It is technical without being technical. He also explains why, right or wrong, Plu..."

Much agree. I recommend this book to anyone who will remotely listen!

[Ryan]

Trike wrote: "I also enjoyed it as well.

I utterly disagree with his rationalization for downgrading Pluto from planet status because it's nonsensical. The excuse of, "Well, if we called everything that became..."Well, if we called everything that became a sphere under its own gravity a planet, we'd have hundreds of them," is pretty weaksauce if you ask me. So what? Kids would still only learn the big planets. We could even call them "Major Planets" and call everything else a minor planet."

But what you're arguing for is almost exactly what happened. Pluto, and the hundreds of very similar bodies became dwarf planets. How does referring to Kuiper Belt Objects as 'minor planets' make it any better than calling them dwarf planets? I'm not sure where your frustration comes from.

[Trike]

Ryan wrote: "But what you're arguing for is almost exactly what happened. Pluto, and the hundreds of very similar bodies became dwarf planets. How does referring to Kuiper Belt Objects as 'minor planets' make it any better than calling them dwarf planets? I'm not sure where your frustration comes from."

Because that's NOT what happened. According to the official IAU declaration, there are only 8 planets in the universe. That's so helio- and egocentric it's retarded.

RESOLUTION 5A

The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A "planet" [1] is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and

(d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects [3], except satellites, orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar-System Bodies".

IAU Resolution: Pluto

RESOLUTION 6A

The IAU further resolves:

Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects.

[1] The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.