- #1
Mikestone
- 21
- 9
As a boy (probably about 1959/60) I read a book on astronomy which among other things briefly discussed Pluto . The author noted that it had been discovered as a result of discrepancies in the orbital motions of Uranus and Neptune, but was far too small to be the cause of these. Among other possibilities, he suggested that Pluto might be "the brightest of a ring of outer asteroids" - not a bad guess at the Kuiper belt.
I can't date the book with any precision, but it was obviously written post 1930. Does it ring a bell with anyone?
I can't date the book with any precision, but it was obviously written post 1930. Does it ring a bell with anyone?