I saw today in the NYT that Owen Gingerich passed away as he was involved in the horrible effort to redefine a planet without actually appreciating, along with other theorists, that a planet is defined by its wandering or direct/retrograde motion in comparison to the Sun's annual motion within the framework of Ptolemy.

"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

Of course, these theorists were working off an RA/Dec framework where the Sun also wanders to satisfy the clockwork solar system and scientific method/Rules of Reasoning of Newton.

https://astro.dur.ac.uk/~ams/users/solar_year.gif

So here we are short of two decades later with two resolutions for direct/retrograde motion with the new resolution already in circulation as per the same theorist who now promotes two versions of planets/wanderers that I first presented to this newsgroup.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/health/16iht-pluto.2501597.html

I can understand, in some ways, why legal disputes occur but in astronomy, people who are not fully in control of the methods and process by which the resolution was arrived at, especially through satellite imaging, are lost in these matters although I wish they were confident in how the resolution was arrived at.

There is no door I can knock on so this newsgroup will have to suffice.

On 2023-06-12 18:43:49 +0000, Gerald Kelleher said:

> I saw today in the NYT that Owen Gingerich passed away as he was
> involved in the horrible effort to redefine a planet without actually
> appreciating, along with other theorists, that a planet is defined by
> its wandering or direct/retrograde motion in comparison to the Sun's
> annual motion within the framework of Ptolemy.

Did I understand correctly that all of Mercurius, Venus, Earth, Mars,
Ceres, Pallas, Junu, Vesta, Astrea, Hebe, Iris, Flora, Metis, Hygiea,
Parthenope, Victoria, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are planets?

Mikko

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 1:16:19 AM UTC-6, Mikko wrote:
> On 2023-06-12 18:43:49 +0000, Gerald Kelleher said:

> > I saw today in the NYT that Owen Gingerich passed away as he was
> > involved in the horrible effort to redefine a planet without actually
> > appreciating, along with other theorists, that a planet is defined by
> > its wandering or direct/retrograde motion in comparison to the Sun's
> > annual motion within the framework of Ptolemy.

> Did I understand correctly that all of Mercurius, Venus, Earth, Mars,
> Ceres, Pallas, Junu, Vesta, Astrea, Hebe, Iris, Flora, Metis, Hygiea,
> Parthenope, Victoria, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are planets?

Well, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are
all major planets.

And Ceres, Pluto, and Eris are all dwarf planets.

And Pallas, Juno, Vesta, Astraea, Hebe, Iris, Flora, Metis, Hygiea, Parthenope,
and Victoria are all minor planets.

So, yes, they *all* are planets, of one type or another, even if sometimes the
word "planet" is used just to mean the major planets. So our correspondent
really has nothing to complain about.

John Savard

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 8:16:19 AM UTC+1, Mikko wrote:
> On 2023-06-12 18:43:49 +0000, Gerald Kelleher said:
>
> > I saw today in the NYT that Owen Gingerich passed away as he was
> > involved in the horrible effort to redefine a planet without actually
> > appreciating, along with other theorists, that a planet is defined by
> > its wandering or direct/retrograde motion in comparison to the Sun's
> > annual motion within the framework of Ptolemy.
> Did I understand correctly that all of Mercurius, Venus, Earth, Mars,
> Ceres, Pallas, Junu, Vesta, Astrea, Hebe, Iris, Flora, Metis, Hygiea,
> Parthenope, Victoria, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are planets?
>
> Mikko

No, you didn't understand correctly.

Over a decade ago, in this newsgroup, I introduced the partitioning of direct/retrograde motions dependent on whether those planets move faster or slower than a moving Earth-

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg

The latter does away with parallax which provided a function among the first Sun-centred astronomers and does something really straightforward. The tracking satellite peering towards the inner solar system already recognises the Sun is stationary hence the stars change position from left to right of the Sun as a demonstration of the Earth's orbital motion. Unless observers accept that fact, they cannot appreciate that Venus and Mercury are behind the Sun as seen from a slower-moving Earth and both planets are in retrograde motion when passing between the central Sun and slower-moving Earth as they overtake us and the satellite.

The original designation of a planet as a wanderer (direct/retrograde motions) relies on two distinct resolutions that were beyond the original researchers yet because this era is obsessed with size or some other superficial planetary trait, the wider world is caught up in the notion of theoretical imbeciles who tried to disturb a really old conception of a planet and lost the ability to appreciate the new direct/retrograde resolution as a consequence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg

The latter does away with parallax which provided a function among the first Sun-centred astronomers and does something really straightforward. The tracking satellite peering towards the inner solar system already recognises the Sun is stationary hence the stars change position from left to right of the Sun as a demonstration of the Earth's orbital motion. Unless observers accept that fact, they cannot appreciate that Venus and Mercury are in direct motion when travelling behind the Sun as seen from a slower-moving Earth and both planets are in retrograde motion when passing between the central Sun and slower-moving Earth as they overtake us and the satellite.

As the original Sun-centred astronomers were chained to the Ptolemaic framework or stationary fixed of background stars where the Sun passed through the constellations thereby defining the ecliptic while the planets wandered North and South of that line, they could not account for the direct/retrogrades of Venus and Mercury correctly and attributed the direct/retrogrades of Venus and Mercury to the Earth's orbital motion in the same manner as the slower-moving planets-

"Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and Mars also. In Saturn, these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's so that the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth." Galileo

Now we have these commentators who recognise the insight of direct/retrograde partitioning without any attribution and without the slightest indication as to how the conclusions were arrived at-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXQh1xFce7s&t=565s

( 8 minutes 30 seconds into the video)

I do not take to myself which I consider a Christian gift while I see the challenges do not stop once others gain the insight because these things outlive us and go into the appreciation of larger life on the planet in the solar system, galaxy or any other greater motions there are.

" And now, brother, listen to the conclusion. Above all the graces and all the gifts of the Holy Spirit which Christ grants to his friends, is the grace of overcoming oneself, and accepting willingly, out of love for Christ, all suffering, injury, discomfort and contempt; for in all other gifts of God we cannot glory, seeing they proceed not from ourselves but from God" St Francis of Assisi

The discomfort presently is pure irritation.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 10:16:15 +0300, Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
wrote:

>On 2023-06-12 18:43:49 +0000, Gerald Kelleher said:
>
>> I saw today in the NYT that Owen Gingerich passed away as he was
>> involved in the horrible effort to redefine a planet without actually
>> appreciating, along with other theorists, that a planet is defined by
>> its wandering or direct/retrograde motion in comparison to the Sun's
>> annual motion within the framework of Ptolemy.
>
>Did I understand correctly that all of Mercurius, Venus, Earth, Mars,
>Ceres, Pallas, Junu, Vesta, Astrea, Hebe, Iris, Flora, Metis, Hygiea,
>Parthenope, Victoria, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are planets?
>
>Mikko

At its most basic level, a "planet" is just a body that formed around
a star. The IAU definition serves only to define a conventional usage
in academic presentations. That's all.

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 1:46:51 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 10:16:15 +0300, Mikko <mikko....@iki.fi>
> wrote:
> >On 2023-06-12 18:43:49 +0000, Gerald Kelleher said:
> >
> >> I saw today in the NYT that Owen Gingerich passed away as he was
> >> involved in the horrible effort to redefine a planet without actually
> >> appreciating, along with other theorists, that a planet is defined by
> >> its wandering or direct/retrograde motion in comparison to the Sun's
> >> annual motion within the framework of Ptolemy.
> >
> >Did I understand correctly that all of Mercurius, Venus, Earth, Mars,
> >Ceres, Pallas, Junu, Vesta, Astrea, Hebe, Iris, Flora, Metis, Hygiea,
> >Parthenope, Victoria, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are planets?
> >
> >Mikko
> At its most basic level, a "planet" is just a body that formed around
> a star. The IAU definition serves only to define a conventional usage
> in academic presentations. That's all.

I have come to expect a standard below which it is not possible to engage in solar system and Earth science research by people who will attach themselves to the names of the first Sun-centred researchers.

"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 Sun still moves directly against the background stars while the planets still wander including the spectacular event next month when Mercury passes behind the Sun in direct motion while the Dazzling Venus passes between the Earth and the central Sun in retrograde motion-

https://www.theplanetstoday.com/

Time-lapse footage shows something similar happening a decade ago-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg

My only objection is not that the partitioning of the wandering motions is out in the open, but the proper explanation is not assigned to the different frameworks needed to account for these motions.

My goodness, some people do not belong in the heritage of solar system observations and research for their blood runs cold when faced with something that is meant to be developed within the confines of the original planetary term as wanderers or direct/retrograde motions. I noticed that Gingerich eventually regretted the IAU definition as it is a betrayal of astronomy and its practitioners by theorists who never had a feel for the planet, and its motions in a Sun-centred system.

I do not know how people can live with themselves sometimes in an era of satellites and imaging but astronomers they are not.

On 2023-06-13 09:36:55 +0000, Gerald Kelleher said:

> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 8:16:19 AM UTC+1, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2023-06-12 18:43:49 +0000, Gerald Kelleher said:
>> > I saw today in the NYT that Owen Gingerich passed away as he was
>> > involved in the horrible effort to redefine a planet without actually
>> > appreciating, along with other theorists, that a planet is defined by
>> > its wandering or direct/retrograde motion in comparison to the Sun's
>> > annual motion within the framework of Ptolemy.

>> Did I understand correctly that all of Mercurius, Venus, Earth, Mars,
>> Ceres, Pallas, Junu, Vesta, Astrea, Hebe, Iris, Flora, Metis, Hygiea,
>> Parthenope, Victoria, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are planets?

> No, you didn't understand correctly.

In that case, which ones are planets and which are not?

> Over a decade ago, in this newsgroup, I introduced the partitioning of
> direct/retrograde motions dependent on whether those planets move
> faster or slower than a moving Earth-

Of the ones mentioned above Mercurius and Venus move faster than Earth;
Mars, Ceres, Pallas, Junu, Vesta, Astrea, Hebe, Iris, Flora, Metis, Hygiea,
Parthenope, Victoria, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune move slower.

Mikko

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 10:56:35 AM UTC+1, Mikko wrote:
> On 2023-06-13 09:36:55 +0000, Gerald Kelleher said:
>
> > Over a decade ago, in this newsgroup, I introduced the partitioning of
> > direct/retrograde motions dependent on whether those planets move
> > faster or slower than a moving Earth-
> Of the ones mentioned above Mercurius and Venus move faster than Earth;
> Mars, Ceres, Pallas, Junu, Vesta, Astrea, Hebe, Iris, Flora, Metis, Hygiea,
> Parthenope, Victoria, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune move slower.
>
> Mikko

Planets are objects seen from a moving Earth so their direct/retrograde motions will present themselves for observations and conclusions.

I don't have time to waste on those non-astronomers who tried to define planets by size or, more importantly, could not compare the wandering motions which give us the name planet with the direct motion of the Sun through the background stars.

Maybe betrayal is too strong a word for the theoretical instituted mess as they simply did not know anything about the research heritage of direct/retrograde motions, the difference between an observational hypothesis required for the slower-moving planets using the framework of Ptolemy from the explicit observations of Venus and Mercury as the travel in smaller and faster circuits seen from a slower-moving Earth-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg

It is all about optics today, literal optics and what 21st-century society is capable of.

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031216.html

On 2023-06-14 10:27:42 +0000, Gerald Kelleher said:

> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 10:56:35 AM UTC+1, Mikko wrote:

>> Of the ones mentioned above Mercurius and Venus move faster than Earth;
>> Mars, Ceres, Pallas, Junu, Vesta, Astrea, Hebe, Iris, Flora, Metis, Hygiea,
>> Parthenope, Victoria, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune move slower.>> Mikko

> Planets are objects seen from a moving Earth so their direct/retrograde
> motions will present themselves for observations and conclusions.

So you don't know whether Mars or Ceres is a palnet or not.
In that case you hardly are an astronomer or otherwise
qualified to discuss the "definition of a planet".

Mikko

On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 10:10:52 AM UTC+1, Mikko wrote:
> On 2023-06-14 10:27:42 +0000, Gerald Kelleher said:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 10:56:35 AM UTC+1, Mikko wrote:
>
> >> Of the ones mentioned above Mercurius and Venus move faster than Earth;
> >> Mars, Ceres, Pallas, Junu, Vesta, Astrea, Hebe, Iris, Flora, Metis, Hygiea,
> >> Parthenope, Victoria, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune move slower..>> Mikko
>
> > Planets are objects seen from a moving Earth so their direct/retrograde
> > motions will present themselves for observations and conclusions.
> So you don't know whether Mars or Ceres is a planet or not.
> In that case you hardly are an astronomer or otherwise
> qualified to discuss the "definition of a planet".
>
> Mikko

The direct/retrograde motions which defined the term 'planet' since antiquity take priority over the recent silly indulgence of trying to define a planet by size.

The Moon orbits the Sun along with the Earth but unlike planets, the Moon displays only direct motion and not retrograde motion as our lunar companion also orbits the Earth. The foolish like the other guy who responded to you do not make that necessary distinction whereas astronomers would as a major principle of solar system research.

Maybe you are better off cutting your losses and retreating, as so many did, to the shadows of human endeavour instead of raising their standards of consideration. There is always room for the prodigal astronomer to return to the optical exercise it once was whether by eyes, telescope or now using satellites or other advances in imaging.

I am dismayed that people do not get tired of theoretical indulgences and begin to engage in the recovery of astronomy from large-scale interpretations of the solar system, galaxy and larger Universe along with the connection between the motions of the planet and the Earth sciences of biology, geology and climate.

On 2023-06-15 09:48:43 +0000, Gerald Kelleher said:

> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 10:10:52 AM UTC+1, Mikko wrote:
>> So you don't know whether Mars or Ceres is a planet or not.
>> In that case you hardly are an astronomer or otherwise> qualified to
>> discuss the "definition of a planet".

> The direct/retrograde motions which defined the term 'planet' since
> antiquity take priority over the recent silly indulgence of trying
> to define a planet by size.

I prefer to believe those who can tell whether Mars is a planet.

Mikko

In order to account for the back-and-forth wandering motions of Venus and Mercury, it is necessary to retain the idea of direct/retrograde motions in order to compare the innovation with the antecedent conceptions of Copernicus and Kepler who were using the fixed star framework of Ptolemy-

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

Kepler, like the few astronomers in his era who were trying to work with a moving Earth in a Sun-centred system, was using the motions of the Earth relative to the motion of Mars in terms of direct/retrograde motions-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#/media/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the Earth, entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils, leading the individual planets into their respective orbits, quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the 'garlands' you see looped towards the centre, with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time, the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler Astronomia Nova 1609

The theoretical riff-raff still think the representation of the motion of Mars and the Earth is geocentric/geostationary when the representation expresses the relationship of Mars against the background constellations as seen from a moving Earth.

I have moved far beyond this to consider how the axiom that planets closer to the Sun move faster in tandem with the Earth's variable speed as it orbits the Sun and also moves with the Sun in our galactic orbital motion. The difference in 21st-century technical terms is that the Sun moves in one direction through space as a function of galactic orbital motion while the planets move in the same direction and opposite directions during their orbital periods of the Sun. That is an invitation.