Etymology of the word 'planet'

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 20:21:54 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

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.

Then those sources are almost certainly wrong. (China, for instance,
had a seven-day week that, linguistically at least, had no connection
to planets. And only a few cultures lumped the Sun and Moon with the
planets. Many more had only five planets.

That the week is associated with a quarter of the lunar cycle is
likely beyond reasonably doubt.

The current debacle which became the 'planet definition' only highlights that the stable foundations of astronomy remain untouched despite the intrusion of careless people. The power is therefore in the etymology of the term 'planet' and not a definition so that anyone with a love of astronomy can now revisit the approach Copernicus took and partly resolved in accounting for the motion of the slower moving outer planets -

"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 silly academics of late tried to talk the ancient approach down in order to talk themselves up but that now looks like foolishness and pretense.

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 12:21:21 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 20:21:54 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

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.

Then those sources are almost certainly wrong. (China, for instance,
had a seven-day week that, linguistically at least, had no connection
to planets. And only a few cultures lumped the Sun and Moon with the
planets. Many more had only five planets.

That the week is associated with a quarter of the lunar cycle is
likely beyond reasonably doubt.

The vast majority of sources do not agree with that.

Gerald Kelleher wrote:
The current debacle which became the 'planet definition' only highlights
that the stable foundations of astronomy remain untouched despite the
intrusion of careless people. The power is therefore in the etymology of
the term 'planet' and not a definition so that anyone with a love of
astronomy can now revisit the approach Copernicus took and partly
resolved in accounting for the motion of the slower moving outer planets -

"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 silly academics of late tried to talk the ancient approach down in
order to talk themselves up but that now looks like foolishness and pretense.






Note: "Other five planets" in your quote. Because the sun and moon were
also wanderers.

It always happens that the topic material tends to fall into the realm of pedants however the tempo and structure of motions which comprise the word 'planet ' exist for those who can be inspired and inspiring.

The Juno satellite captures Jupiter's circle of illumination at half phase and the motion of its satellites much like an observer on the slower moving Earth captures the phases of Venus as it runs its circuit thereby generating a sun centered perspective of orbital motion -

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

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

The vast majority surreptitiously withdrew from this forum as it disturbed what they considered astronomy to be, in their case an identification exercise of celestial objects within a rotating dome of stars framework however such an exercise proves exceptionally artificial and hopelessly limited.

Gerald Kelleher wrote:
It always happens that the topic material tends to fall into the realm of
pedants however the tempo and structure of motions which comprise the
word 'planet ' exist for those who can be inspired and inspiring.

The Juno satellite captures Jupiter's circle of illumination at half
phase and the motion of its satellites much like an observer on the
slower moving Earth captures the phases of Venus as it runs its circuit
thereby generating a sun centered perspective of orbital motion -

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

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

The vast majority surreptitiously withdrew from this forum as it
disturbed what they considered astronomy to be, in their case an
identification exercise of celestial objects within a rotating dome of
stars framework however such an exercise proves exceptionally artificial
and hopelessly limited.




By your definition the Earth is not a planet since it doesn't wander on the
sky.

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 02:12:14 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 12:21:21 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 20:21:54 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

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.

Then those sources are almost certainly wrong. (China, for instance,
had a seven-day week that, linguistically at least, had no connection
to planets. And only a few cultures lumped the Sun and Moon with the
planets. Many more had only five planets.

That the week is associated with a quarter of the lunar cycle is
likely beyond reasonably doubt.

The vast majority of sources do not agree with that.

I don't think that's an accurate assessment. But you will believe what
you will believe.

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 6:58:29 PM UTC-6, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 9:45:09 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

That still falls closest to seven day periods.

29.5 / 4 = 7.375

That is really not close to 7.

Um, it's closer to 7 than it is to 8. So from one quarter of the
Moon to the next, it's 7 days almost twice as often as it is 8
days, which is enough to settle on 7 days once you've decided to
not bother looking at the Moon and constantly adjusting it any
more.

John Savard

Gerald Kelleher on 3/27/2017 in
wrote :
The less careful are always concerned about definitions and forget why

This is the "etymological fallacy", the fallacy that etymology trumps
usage in meaning.

Otherwise one should respond that when a person says he loves his kids
one should say "he really means his goats"

celestial objects such as planets,among other things, are called that way and
tend to fabricate contrived stories to force through debacles such as the
current hype over the planet Pluto.

The etymology of the word planet should have halted the debacle insofar as
planets are designated by that term by their motions and in the geocentric
era this included differentiation with the motion of the moon and Sun -

"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

Nowadays it is easy enough to account for the wandering motions of the
planets by splitting the perspectives between the inner and outer planets and
their relative speeds to the Earth. Had academics enough common sense they
would drop the definition stuff and revisit the etymology of the term planet
and discover something really new and exciting.

Paul Schlyter on 3/28/2017 in
wrote :
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:44:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
We *know* that the word "planet" comes from the Greek =
, wanderers.

The stars stay in the sky in fixed patterns - the constellations -
but the=

five visible planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn
move among=

them.

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: Saturday, Sunday,. Mo(o)nday, followed by Mars' day, Mercury's day,
Jupiter's day and Venus' day. Check the names of the weekdays in French...


Trus but originally in Babylonian times the month was divided into
seven days plus one or more intercalated days reflecting the phases of
the moon. As Babylonian astronomy advanced this seven day division
became fixed and associated with the seven "planets".

While Uranus and Neptune are only visible through telescopes, it
was
reasonable to include them among the planets.

We could have also included Ceres, Juno, Pallas, Vesta, and the
other
asteroids,

During the 38 years from 1807 to 1845 when there
were only four known asteroids, Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta, they were
considered to be planets. Small
planets of course but still planets. Back then the solar system had eleven
planets. But from 1845 and on,
when more and more asteroids were discovered in
ever larger numbers, Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta
were degraded to asteroids. This was some 150
years before something similar happened to Pluto, and for similar reasons.

as they are also visible in telescopes, and move in the sky, unlike the
stars. It has been chosen, though, to exclude such
objects from=

those we normally think of as planets - even though asteroids are
also
referred to as "minor planets", i.e., the "minor planet circulars".


Ceres, like Pluto, is also known as a "dwarf planet", based on the
fact tha=
t both are sufficiently large to be forced into a spherical shape by
their
gravity.


Pluto _was_ recognized as the ninth planet of the Solar System
after its
discovery. The IAU has proclaimed that it is officially not one of
the majo=
r planets; the basis for this is that another body, Eris, was
discovered that=


was larger than Pluto - _and_ that recognizing Eris as the tenth
planet wou=
ld not have been an appropriate response, because Pluto and Eris are
accompani=
ed by several other bodies of which we already know, although those
are somewh=
at smaller, and are likely accompanied by many more.


Thus, just as there are thousands of asteroids, there are likely
thousands =
of Kuiper Belt Objects.


Of course, what orbits the Sun is... what orbits the Sun. It is not
for us =
to decide what may orbit the Sun. But where is it unreasonable to say
that we=


will use the word "planet" to refer to only the largest and most
important =
of the bodies orbiting the Sun - and those shall be limited in number?


And that we will use the term in a reasonably consistent way,
rather than o=
ne controlled by history and sentiment?


John Savard