Telling the truth about the term 'planet'

In astronomy planets were not distinguished to the background stars, they were distinguished by their wandering motions as opposed to the observed motion of the Sun and moon -

" 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

Planets were never defined by their size and composition so the mess created a decade ago was not created by astronomers but by theorists who never had a feel for the technical and historical details which causes planets to be defined separately to the Sun and moon. In 2006 when the debacle occurred there was no 'dwarf' planet, there was the ugly sight of students being taught that there were 9 planets before the incident occurred and 8 planets afterwards. Over the decade the story morphed to include Pluto as a 'dwarf planet' as those people acted with intelligence and integrity and revised the original story to include this falsehood where it exists today -

"The IAU defines a dwarf planet as an object that orbits the sun and is massive enough to have been forced into a spherical shape by its own gravity but has not "cleared its neighborhood" of other orbiting material. (Pluto falls short on this last count, according to IAU officials, which is why the former ninth planet was reclassified as a dwarf planet in 2006.)" Scientific American

Talk about cleaning up a mess because those old enough to remember it was a horrible attempt to ignore astronomical history and 'define' a planet outside its original meaning as a celestial object with a particular observed motions. Goebbels would be proud of the empiricist IAU vehicle in manufacturing history to get themselves out of a jam -

"Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the
truth" exists. [...] The implied objective of this line of thought is a
nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
an event, "It never happened"--well, it never happened. If he says that
two and two are five--well, two and two are five. This prospect
frightens me much more than bombs [...]" Orwell

Ceres, Juno, Pallas and Vesta were all planets (because they match your definition of a wandering yoke) for 40 years, before the increasing number of discoveries convinced astronomers to downgrade them all in 1845 to asteroids.

Ceres was upgraded again to a dwarf planet when Pluto was downgraded.

None of this is any sort of a big deal.

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 9:42:21 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Ceres, Juno, Pallas and Vesta were all planets (because they match your definition of a wandering yoke) for 40 years, before the increasing number of discoveries convinced astronomers to downgrade them all in 1845 to asteroids.

Ceres was upgraded again to a dwarf planet when Pluto was downgraded.

None of this is any sort of a big deal.

It would be a big deal to a grade-school kid whose test was marked down due to an "incorrect" answer.

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 2:42:21 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Ceres, Juno, Pallas and Vesta were all planets (because they match your definition of a wandering yoke) for 40 years, before the increasing number of discoveries convinced astronomers to downgrade them all in 1845 to asteroids.


It can be difficult to watch people who have no sense of the technical details which distinguished the observed motions of the planets from the moon and the Sun, technical details that stretch back to antiquity with the full statement from Copernicus adequately putting planets in proper perspective and nothing to do with size or composition by today's hapless celestial sphere practitioners -

"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). Furthermore, they are at times nearer to the earth, when they are said to be in perigee; at other times they are farther away, when they are said to be in apogee." Copernicus

http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars...opernicus.html


Considering the wandering nature of the planets are partitioned by perspective seen from a moving Earth, to see people butcher the distinctions when it is now fairly easy to see how the older astronomers viewed these things, how the heliocentric astronomers changed it and how they now need to be changed again.

No point in explaining to thugs how the outer and inner planets and their wandering motions are distinguished from a moving Earth.

oriel36 wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 2:42:21 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Ceres, Juno, Pallas and Vesta were all planets (because they match your
definition of a wandering yoke) for 40 years, before the increasing
number of discoveries convinced astronomers to downgrade them all in 1845 to asteroids.


It can be difficult to watch people who have no sense of the technical
details which distinguished the observed motions of the planets from the
moon and the Sun, technical details that stretch back to antiquity with
the full statement from Copernicus adequately putting planets in proper
perspective and nothing to do with size or composition by today's hapless
celestial sphere practitioners -

"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).
Furthermore, they are at times nearer to the earth, when they are said to
be in perigee; at other times they are farther away, when they are said
to be in apogee." Copernicus

http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars...opernicus.html


Considering the wandering nature of the planets are partitioned by
perspective seen from a moving Earth, to see people butcher the
distinctions when it is now fairly easy to see how the older astronomers
viewed these things, how the heliocentric astronomers changed it and how
they now need to be changed again.

No point in explaining to thugs how the outer and inner planets and their
wandering motions are distinguished from a moving Earth.


Perhaps you'd like to tell us about Copernicus's observations of Uranus,
Neptune and Pluto only one of which is visible to the naked eye and that
with difficulty.

If you include Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris there would be 13
planets. It would be hard to exclude Palls, Juno and Vesta - that's 16. I
know I've missed out other candidates.
There are an estimated 10,000 others waiting to be discovered. And yet you
keep whining about Pluto. Copernicus would have laughed in your face.
Galileo did laugh about people like you although I expect he would have
cried I he knew people would still be so stupid hundreds of years in his
future.

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:18:25 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 2:42:21 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Ceres, Juno, Pallas and Vesta were all planets (because they match your
definition of a wandering yoke) for 40 years, before the increasing
number of discoveries convinced astronomers to downgrade them all in 1845 to asteroids.


It can be difficult to watch people who have no sense of the technical
details which distinguished the observed motions of the planets from the
moon and the Sun, technical details that stretch back to antiquity with
the full statement from Copernicus adequately putting planets in proper
perspective and nothing to do with size or composition by today's hapless
celestial sphere practitioners -

"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).
Furthermore, they are at times nearer to the earth, when they are said to
be in perigee; at other times they are farther away, when they are said
to be in apogee." Copernicus

http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars...opernicus.html


Considering the wandering nature of the planets are partitioned by
perspective seen from a moving Earth, to see people butcher the
distinctions when it is now fairly easy to see how the older astronomers
viewed these things, how the heliocentric astronomers changed it and how
they now need to be changed again.

No point in explaining to thugs how the outer and inner planets and their
wandering motions are distinguished from a moving Earth.


Perhaps you'd like to tell us about Copernicus's observations of Uranus,
Neptune and Pluto only one of which is visible to the naked eye and that
with difficulty.


The term 'planet' defines itself as it means 'wanderer' and none of you, to my knowledge, are capable of handling the wandering motions and what they represent in terms of relative speeds between the Earth and the outer planets/wanderers -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

The middle Eastern thugs blow up ancient monuments to make way for their contemporary convictions so this is exactly what happened in an attempt to destroy the original approach to 'planets' arising from another bomb going off in astronomy in Newton's approach to the wandering motions -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

You are driven by an agenda which tries to substitute observed motions which define planets with a weak minded vacuous appeal to size or composition and make fools of yourselves in the process, it was this way 10 years ago when the debacle occurred as it remains so today.

When you see the planets wander then you will know that the description is contained in the word and the word contained in the description -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Gerald is still unable to say why he thinks that quote from Newton is intetesting. Gerald agreed thst the planets always go around the sun in the same direction, and that we see spparent retrograde motion from earth, which is exsctly what Newton said. He was quite right.

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 7:10:07 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Gerald is still unable to say why he thinks that quote from Newton is intetesting. Gerald agreed thst the planets always go around the sun in the same direction, and that we see spparent retrograde motion from earth, which is exsctly what Newton said. He was quite right.

Newton invented his absolute/relative space and motion to contain his silly idea as to how the observed wandering motions of the planets are resolved insofar as the relative speed of the Earth accounts for the observed behavior of the outer planets and therefore infers the Earth makes a circuit of the Sun and not the Sun a circuit around the Earth -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions" Newton

If you want Sir Isaac's dumb approach to retrogrades then you get to have his absolute/relative space and motion also.

The intellectual lightweights who tried to 'define' something which is essentially self-defining don't even understand their own system much less the new perspectives I introduced as a modification of the original heliocentric reasoning.

oriel36 wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:18:25 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 2:42:21 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Ceres, Juno, Pallas and Vesta were all planets (because they match your
definition of a wandering yoke) for 40 years, before the increasing
number of discoveries convinced astronomers to downgrade them all in 1845 to asteroids.


It can be difficult to watch people who have no sense of the technical
details which distinguished the observed motions of the planets from the
moon and the Sun, technical details that stretch back to antiquity with
the full statement from Copernicus adequately putting planets in proper
perspective and nothing to do with size or composition by today's hapless
celestial sphere practitioners -

"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).
Furthermore, they are at times nearer to the earth, when they are said to
be in perigee; at other times they are farther away, when they are said
to be in apogee." Copernicus

http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars...opernicus.html


Considering the wandering nature of the planets are partitioned by
perspective seen from a moving Earth, to see people butcher the
distinctions when it is now fairly easy to see how the older astronomers
viewed these things, how the heliocentric astronomers changed it and how
they now need to be changed again.

No point in explaining to thugs how the outer and inner planets and their
wandering motions are distinguished from a moving Earth.


Perhaps you'd like to tell us about Copernicus's observations of Uranus,
Neptune and Pluto only one of which is visible to the naked eye and that
with difficulty.


The term 'planet' defines itself as it means 'wanderer' and none of you,
to my knowledge, are capable of handling the wandering motions and what
they represent in terms of relative speeds between the Earth and the outer
planets/wanderers -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

The middle Eastern thugs blow up ancient monuments to make way for their
contemporary convictions so this is exactly what happened in an attempt
to destroy the original approach to 'planets' arising from another bomb
going off in astronomy in Newton's approach to the wandering motions -

Stick to the point.

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

Explain carefully how this statement is wrong.


You are driven by an agenda which tries to substitute observed motions
which define planets with a weak minded vacuous appeal to size or
composition and make fools of yourselves in the process, it was this way
10 years ago when the debacle occurred as it remains so today.

If there is no lower limit to the size of planets every meteoroid counts as
a planet.
The ancients only called the wandering objects which were visible to the
naked eye planets. That rules out Neptune as well as Pluto.


When you see the planets wander then you will know that the description
is contained in the word and the word contained in the description -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

We have a word for wander - it's "wander". For all who are not ancient
Greeks "planet" has a different meaning. We're talking about astronomy not
philology.

If you don't set a lower levels to planetary size then 3834 Zappafrank is a
planet.

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 12:10:07 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Gerald is still unable to say why he thinks that quote from Newton is
intetesting. Gerald agreed thst the planets always go around the sun in the
same direction, and that we see spparent retrograde motion from earth, which is
exsctly what Newton said. He was quite right.

Well, I've been trying to figure it out, reading between the lines.

But he has, in some of his posts, made specific criticisms of that Newton
quote. One is that an observer on the Sun is clearly imaginary. That's true,
such an observer would have hot feet!

Why this matters, of course, is mysterious.

John Savard