In 1915, a man named Percival Lowell predicted that there is a planet beyond Neptune. This statement was proven 15 years later in 1930, when American astronomer Clyde Tombaugh discovered that there was, in fact, a planet beyond Neptune, and that planet was called Pluto.
For 76 years Pluto was classified as a planet by astronomers. Unfortunately in 2006, it was kicked out from our Solar System’s family of planets. The question is, why?
Michael Guillen lays down to us the messy history behind Pluto’s sudden change in classification from “planet” to “dwarf planet”. He also believes that Pluto should be reinstated as a planet, for many reasons.
Check out the full story over at Fox News.
What are your thoughts about this one?
(Image Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute/Alex Parker/ Wikimedia Commons)
"Michael Guillen was born in East Los Angeles, earned his BS from UCLA and his MS and PhD from Cornell University in physics, mathematics and astronomy. For eight years he was an award-winning physics instructor at Harvard University. For fourteen years he was the Emmy-award-winning science correspondent for ABC News, appearing regularly on 'Good Morning America,' '20/20,' 'Nightline,' and 'World News Tonight.' Dr. Guillen is the host of the History Channel series, 'Where Did It Come From?' and producer of the award-winning family movie, 'LITTLE RED WAGON.' He's currently writing a book for Harper Collins on science and the Bible."
So it sounds like he's part of the scientific community you'd like to trust.
I vote to make Pluto a planet again. :)
Guillen specifically states that the IAU worked backwards, creating a definition for planet that accommodated their predetermined conclusion that Pluto should be excluded. He offers no explanation for why anyone would want to do this, or why in God's name it should matter to the average Fox reader who is (I'm assuming) not an astronomer.
The information in the article seems straightforward, but the rhetoric is utterly insane. As is the idea that anyone would still be trying to gin up controversy about Pluto's "demotion" 14 years after it happened.
Maybe the IAU's definition for "planet" is flawed. I don't know. I, too, am not an astronomer. But there's absolutely no reason for the general public to weigh in on this or, really, to care about the outcome. I'm pretty sure we can trust the scientific community to arrive at a consensus, if they haven't done so already.