Reply to comment

Tyson is wrong in his statement that only Americans are bothered by the demotion of Pluto. This is simply not the case. There are Internet groups, songs, and poems by people all over the world supporting Pluto's planet status. I run a blog advocating Pluto's reinstatement, and I have heard from people all over the world, in places such as Singapore (where one person started a two-year online petition), the Philippines, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and more strongly expressing their belief that Pluto is still a planet. Tyson is also wrong in his claim that people's affinity for Pluto is about the Disney dog. It is not. Most people who support Pluto retaining its planet status are people with an interest in astronomy and the solar system. The outrageous, flawed process used by four percent of the IAU in adopting the planet definition that demoted Pluto only generated more support for its reinstatement.

Tyson is also incorrect in calling Pluto a comet. It is not a comet. Pluto is much bigger than any known comet, and its orbit never takes it into the inner solar system. It is both a planet and a Kuiper Belt Object because it is in a state of hydrostatic equilbrium, meaning it has enough self gravity to pull itself into a round shape. When this happens, objects become geologically differentiated into core, mantle and crust, just like the larger planets and unlike shapeless KBOs. Tyson's minimizing of the importance of hydrostatic equilibrium is quite problematic.

Interestingly, over 300 professional astronomers signed a petition saying they will not use the new planet definition. Many even now are working to get the demotion overturned.

I plan on writing a book of my own on this subject, and I hope you will consider reviewing it when it is completed. In the meantime, you can find my Pluto blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com