Etymology of the word 'planet'

It is so unusual to write among those who have little feeling for the topic and the material but that being said the principles which determine what a planet is from its observed motions are bound up in the structure of the solar system including the Earth's motion and position in it remain as solid and stable as they always were. The attempt to isolate the term 'planet' by size is therefore crude in the extreme but perhaps typical for the voodoo merchants who dominate astronomy presently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

That graphic depicting the motions of Venus and Mercury is certainly a breakthrough along with the transition of the background stars from an evening appearance to what will eventually be a dawn appearance due solely to the orbital motion of the Earth. It is not possible to find dedicated graphics to demonstrate that stars to the left of the Sun are an evening appearance while to the right are a dawn appearance as contemporaries still work with the geocentric notion of the motion of the Sun through the Zodiac but I am sure that will change soon. The appreciation of the motion of the inner planets seen from a slower moving Earth is contingent on that change to a Sun centered reference as opposed to the relative speeds which dominate perspectives of the outer planets -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lwJGHg_SQM

People are not thugs and can generally pick up what is being shown and said so that while pretense will continue to play a role it will lessen as people enjoy the use of imaging to convey the narrative centered around the term planet, including our own.

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 5:29:17 PM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
People are not thugs and can generally pick up what is being shown and said so that while pretense will continue to play a role it will lessen as people enjoy the use of imaging to convey the narrative centered around the term planet, including our own.

And Ceres. It was so unfair when Ceres was demoted from Planet to mere Asteroid.

I have seen Ceres through binoculars. Have you?

wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 5:29:17 PM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
People are not thugs and can generally pick up what is being shown and
said so that while pretense will continue to play a role it will lessen
as people enjoy the use of imaging to convey the narrative centered
around the term planet, including our own.

And Ceres. It was so unfair when Ceres was demoted from Planet to mere Asteroid.

I have seen Ceres through binoculars. Have you?


There is a solution to Oriel's problem. Even NASA informally call asteroids
worlds. Of course compromise, flexibility and common sense are not
compatible with his delusions.

The great advancement 500 years ago was accounting for the wandering motions which comprise the celestial object termed a planet, not just the wandering but the number and extent of retrograde/direct motion for each planet . Previously the geocentric astronomers had assigned looping motions intrinsic to each planet around a stationary Earth -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160915.html

Copernicus reasoned that the Earth is moving and that faster moving Earth caused the slower moving outer planets to fall behind in view temporarily as a car on a roundabout would see slower moving cars in outer lanes fall temporarily behind in view -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/011...2000_tezel.gif


Turning to the perspective for the inner planets.Until recently the perceived retrogrades sat awkwardly for a number of reasons and indeed the attempts to explain the observed motions of Venus and Mercury proved insufficient even though it didn't stop contributors from trying -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYYwNvjr7Lg

The clear understanding has emerged that retrogrades and planetary phases of the inner planets mesh neatly in accounting for their backward and forward motion gauged against the background stars as they run their smaller and faster circuits around the Sun -

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg

I take delight in the fact that many observers already know how to frame the phases as a loop thereby completing the set of perspectives which fix our position and motion between Mars and Venus around a central Sun.This is a long way from being silly in trying to isolate a planet as an object based on size and moreso that the material which give the term 'planet' its name remain largely undeveloped as a complete narrative.

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:13:09 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 5:29:17 PM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher
wrote:
People are not thugs and can generally pick up what is being
shown and said so that while pretense will continue to play a role it
will lessen as people enjoy the use of imaging to convey the
narrative centered around the term planet, including our own.

And Ceres. It was so unfair when Ceres was demoted from Planet to
mere Asteroid.

I have seen Ceres through binoculars. Have you?

Don't forget Pallas, Juno and Vesta! During the 38 years from 1807 to
1845 these four were the only known asteroids. But back then they
were considered to be planets. Small planets of course but still
planets.

Vesta is the brightest of these four. I have seen Vesta with the
naked eye. Have you?

On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 8:56:46 PM UTC+1, Paul Schlyter wrote:

Vesta is the brightest of these four. I have seen Vesta with the
naked eye. Have you?

No, I had to use binoculars again.

Many have plenty to say but nothing to show .

When I came to this forum the notion of inner retrogrades was as fudged as it always has been since the inception of reasoning for a sun centered system. I have multiple threads destroyed by vandals willing to push their version of retrogrades for Venus -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYYwNvjr7Lg


With just a simple addition of planetary phases it became possible to coral observations into a single circuit such as this complete set taken over an 18 month period -

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg


No less important is factoring in the Earth's orbital motion into that perspective and although slightly trickier it uses the annual transition of stars from an evening appearance to a morning appearance or the change from the left of the Sun to the right of the Sun as proof of the Sun centered system -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

The term 'genius' is currently a subterfuge for voodoo merchants who would have the wider population believe in things that are truly awful but inspiration will always trounce this fake 'genius' thereby allowing astronomy to join music,poetry and all those creative endeavors once more.

I can understand the vast majority live in a theoretical bubble but not everyone can't .

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-6, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

Not entirely uninterrupted.

It's true that not everyone used the seven-day week. The Romans, and some
African countries, had a "market day" every eight days.

But while Ceylon went to a lunar week briefly, the French Revolutionaries
went to a ten-day week, and Russia used a five-day week for a while (and, I
think, they also made an experiment with another week length then as well),
as you noted, these weren't world-wide, so they didn't interrupt the
succession of the seven days of the week, causing their identity to be lost.

In the 1960s, a proposal to do just that, the World Calendar, achieved a fair
amount of publicity, appearing even in encyclopedia articles as well as in
books about time and the calendar - but because it would interfere with
religious practice, it really had no chance of being accepted.

Of course, the same idea could be adapted to a calendar that added a whole
"leap week" to some years, but that amount of variation in the length of the
year would be inconvenient for other reasons.

John Savard

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 12:24:51 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
Russia used a five-day week for a while (and, I
think, they also made an experiment with another week length then as well),

I managed to find on Wikipedia that first they went to a five-day week in
1930 and 1931, and then from about 1932 to 1940, they used a six-day week.

John Savard

Unlike the Soviet five-day week, the Soviet six-day week excluded the 31st
day of each month, so it was something like what the World Calendar would
have done to the seven-day week.

John Savard