A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Etymology of the word 'planet'



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 29th 17, 04:30 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Etymology of the word 'planet'

Each rotation is called by a weekday and that encompasses the appearance of the Sun followed by the appearance of the stars as one location, apart from the North and South poles, enter and exit the circle of illumination with each rotation. No doubt the strange people who think that it is possible to split apart rotation to the Sun as distinct from rotation to the stars in order to justify an awful timekeeping conclusion wouldn't have the capacity to know nor care but for everyone else there are two distinct day/night cycles experienced on the surface of the planet, again, apart from the North and South poles where only a single polar day/night cycle is experienced.

The admittance to practice astronomy is common sense, the ability to use your eyes and normal judgments of motions along with the experiences as we feel them each day and season. The juggling of perspectives which indicate the difference between the inner and outer planets are not unduly difficult and even easy with familiarity .

It is no surprise that few see the opportunities involved in revisiting the etymology of 'planet' as a term and the sheer enjoyment and challenges provided by our careful ancestors unlike the mediocre who care only for their pensions and unwarranted reputations.

  #12  
Old March 29th 17, 04:43 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Etymology of the word 'planet'

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:05:21 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:09:12 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 07:56:32 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:16:02 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:



Actually, there were seven visible planets since
the Sun and Moon also were considered to be
planets. That's why we have seven days in the
week...


That's unlikely. We have seven days of the week because it is

natural
to break the lunar month into four division of seven days each.

The
planets just contributed to our modern naming of those days.


If so, why not five divisions of six days each instead? Or three
divisions of ten days each? Those would be better approximations

to
the synod in month.


The lunar cycle falls very naturally (from a human perspective) into
four obvious lunar phases, separated by seven days.


And why is the seven day week so universal? Through all our

calendar
reforms the weeks have run uninterrupted. And the Christians, the
Jews, the Muslims and the Atheists disagree strongly on a lot of
things, but they all agree on which day of the week it is.


All of this predates the existence of any modern religions by
thousands of years. The lunar calendar predates all other calendars

by
thousands of years. In order for the number of days in a week to
change, there would need to be some compelling reason for making

that
change, something that would be stronger than an ancient cultural
selection of seven-day weeks.


AFAIK, every known ancient lunar calendar consisted of seven-day
weeks. A great many used naming systems unrelated to the planets,
however.


And during all these ancient prehistoric times there were seven
naked-eye planets up in the sky. Why do you think think those seven
planets didn't matter at all for mankind's choice of a seven day
week?
  #13  
Old March 29th 17, 04:49 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Etymology of the word 'planet'

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:43:06 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

AFAIK, every known ancient lunar calendar consisted of seven-day
weeks. A great many used naming systems unrelated to the planets,
however.


And during all these ancient prehistoric times there were seven
naked-eye planets up in the sky. Why do you think think those seven
planets didn't matter at all for mankind's choice of a seven day
week?


The Moon is far more obvious than the planets (and it's not at all
obvious that most ancient people would have classed the Sun and Moon
as "planets"; there were actually only five moving "stars". Look at
what we know of the mythologies of pre-technological civilizations and
the Sun and Moon are frequently treated very differently from the
stars.

In any case, I didn't say that the planets "didn't matter at all",
what I said is that they weren't the basis of the seven day week.

It's also worth noting how frequently we find the numbers three and
seven having sacred appeal to cultures- something which is probably
not related to any natural observations.
  #14  
Old March 29th 17, 05:14 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Etymology of the word 'planet'

It is one thing to attempt to re-define what a planet is, it is quite something else to try and rewrite history.

Secondly, we see other revolutions as advancing in the opposite direction, that is, from west to east; I refer to those of the sun, moon, and five planets. The sun thus regulates the year for us, and the moon the month, which are also very familiar periods of time. In like manner each of the other five planets completes its own orbit.

"Yet [these motions] differ in many ways [from the daily rotation or first motion]. In the first place, they do not swing around the same poles as the first motion, but run obliquely through the zodiac. Secondly, these bodies are not seen moving uniformly in their orbits, since the sun and moon are observed to be sometimes slow, at other times faster in their course. Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times, and stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]." Copernicus

The etymology of 'planet' requires their distinction from the Sun and the moon and especially their observed motions against the background stars by which retrograde motion is gauged. It turns out two distinct perspective are required to make sense of our solar system and the Earth's position within it.

So what if unintelligent people are unable to experience the observational and historical narrative by which we come to know the planets, with or without telescopes, as there is immense satisfaction in returning to the original context of what a planet is and the role it plays in astronomical thinking. Everything else is pure vandalism.
  #15  
Old March 30th 17, 02:23 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Scott M. Kozel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 160
Default Etymology of the word 'planet'

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 10:05:21 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:09:12 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

If so, why not five divisions of six days each instead? Or three
divisions of ten days each? Those would be better approximations to
the synod in month.


The lunar cycle falls very naturally (from a human perspective) into
four obvious lunar phases, separated by seven days.


The lunar cycle is not 28 days.

The Moon takes 27.3 days to orbit Earth, but the lunar phase cycle (from new Moon to new Moon) is 29.5 days.
  #16  
Old March 30th 17, 02:45 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Etymology of the word 'planet'

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:23:40 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 10:05:21 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:09:12 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

If so, why not five divisions of six days each instead? Or three
divisions of ten days each? Those would be better approximations to
the synod in month.


The lunar cycle falls very naturally (from a human perspective) into
four obvious lunar phases, separated by seven days.


The lunar cycle is not 28 days.

The Moon takes 27.3 days to orbit Earth, but the lunar phase cycle (from new Moon to new Moon) is 29.5 days.


That still falls closest to seven day periods.
  #17  
Old March 30th 17, 04:36 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Etymology of the word 'planet'

Now that it firmly established that the observed 'retrogrades' of Venus differ from the outer planets insofar as the back and forth motions of the relatively faster Venus and Mercury against the background stars are simply the normal Sun centered circuit perspective also seen in Jupiter's satellites as those moons run their circuits around their parent planet -

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

No less important is how to feature the Earth's slower orbital motion into the planetary perspective as it delays when Venus reaches it furthest point before it turns back in front of the Sun or, as a dawn appearance reaches the furthest point before returning back behind the central Sun -

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

How to turn back the pretense which engulfed astronomy for a number of centuries is proving to be a much harder task than the actual observational narrative.



  #18  
Old March 31st 17, 01:58 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Scott M. Kozel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 160
Default Etymology of the word 'planet'

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 9:45:09 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:23:40 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 10:05:21 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:09:12 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

If so, why not five divisions of six days each instead? Or three
divisions of ten days each? Those would be better approximations to
the synod in month.

The lunar cycle falls very naturally (from a human perspective) into
four obvious lunar phases, separated by seven days.


The lunar cycle is not 28 days.

The Moon takes 27.3 days to orbit Earth, but the lunar phase cycle (from new Moon to new Moon) is 29.5 days.


That still falls closest to seven day periods.


29.5 / 4 = 7.375

That is really not close to 7.


  #19  
Old March 31st 17, 02:27 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Etymology of the word 'planet'

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:58:27 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 9:45:09 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:23:40 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 10:05:21 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:09:12 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

If so, why not five divisions of six days each instead? Or three
divisions of ten days each? Those would be better approximations to
the synod in month.

The lunar cycle falls very naturally (from a human perspective) into
four obvious lunar phases, separated by seven days.

The lunar cycle is not 28 days.

The Moon takes 27.3 days to orbit Earth, but the lunar phase cycle (from new Moon to new Moon) is 29.5 days.


That still falls closest to seven day periods.


29.5 / 4 = 7.375

That is really not close to 7.


It's as close as you can get when you have to work with integers. And
given the predisposition of most cultures to treat seven as a sacred
or otherwise special number, it's the obvious choice.
  #20  
Old March 31st 17, 04:21 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Scott M. Kozel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 160
Default Etymology of the word 'planet'

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 9:27:22 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:58:27 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 9:45:09 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:23:40 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 10:05:21 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:09:12 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

If so, why not five divisions of six days each instead? Or three
divisions of ten days each? Those would be better approximations to
the synod in month.

The lunar cycle falls very naturally (from a human perspective) into
four obvious lunar phases, separated by seven days.

The lunar cycle is not 28 days.

The Moon takes 27.3 days to orbit Earth, but the lunar phase cycle (from new Moon to new Moon) is 29.5 days.

That still falls closest to seven day periods.


29.5 / 4 = 7.375

That is really not close to 7.


It's as close as you can get when you have to work with integers. And
given the predisposition of most cultures to treat seven as a sacred
or otherwise special number, it's the obvious choice.


Most sources found in an online search say that the
seven day week is associated with the seven heavenly bodies;
the Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn; the
seven-day week based on these same celestial bodies was
adopted as far away as Japan and ancient China.





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Word in the box Ksuvo Misc 1 June 17th 13 01:47 PM
Word of the day [SMF][_3_] Misc 1 March 14th 10 06:48 PM
Fr/lat/ru tu-vous/tu-vos/ты-вы: etymology ? Sébastien de Mapias Amateur Astronomy 0 September 24th 07 07:24 AM
This Word Just In... OM History 10 December 13th 06 06:22 AM
This word just in... Bob Haller Nonb Garta History 12 February 19th 04 01:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.