Originally posted by backinblack
I sugest you do your own research on what ancient texts say about planets..
I'm not here to do it for you..
Ah, the old "Do your research to support my claim, else I'll belittle you for not doing research" trick. Are you seriously telling me you won't/can't name one unambiguous example of a post-telescope discovery being referenced by a pre-telescope author? If what you say is actually true, I really have no explanation for your reluctance, other than to suspect that your "evidence" is more easily asserted than produced.
Pluto being relegated to dwarf planet was perfectly consistent with the new definition established by the IAU, which was implemented specifically to address inconsistencies in the arbitrary qualifications leading up to the change.
Only proves my point....
If you want to pat yourself on the back, while ignoring most of what I've written, color me unimpressed but also unsurprised.
"Whether the ancient authors had a definition of 'planet' that differs from ours, while not irrelevant by any stretch, is ancillary to this point."
"My response to you, as already explained, entailed a request for evidence as to whether a given civilization had the means to distinguish planets from stars, in some way other than their mere apparent motion relative to the fixed stars (hence the Greek 'wandering star'). I'd also like to know what method or mechanism allowed these people, prior to the telescope, to allegedly know about these bodies."
I think you've made it clear that you're happy to make claims, but not so happy to defend them. Either that, or you're operating under the bizarre belief that making a claim is the same as defending it, which is equally unfortunate.