Venus & Jupiter (APOD 02 Feb 2008)

[neufer]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080202.html
.
Star of Bethlehem?
Near Occultation - Venus & Jupiter , June 17, 2 BC
http://www.go.ednet.ns.ca/~larry/planets/2bcocclt.htm

Code: Select all

Tue -1 Jun 17 21:00
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
.
.             Right                   Distance    From 31°48'N 35°12'E:
.           Ascension    Declination      (AU)   Altitude Azimuth
.
Venus        8h 43m 20s   +19° 26.3'     0.654   -14.865  124.729 Set
Jupiter      8h 43m 20s   +19° 26.8'     6.078   -14.861  124.738 Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Fri 2008 Feb 1 12:33
.
.             Right                   Distance    From 31°48'N 35°12'E:
.           Ascension    Declination      (AU)   Altitude Azimuth
.
Venus       18h 43m 34s   -22° 21.0'     1.339     1.032   62.700 Up
Jupiter     18h 43m 34s   -22° 56.3'     6.046     0.694   62.217 Up

http://www.go.ednet.ns.ca/~larry/planets/occltlst.htm

[craterchains]

If you had read the bible you would know that it is impossible for this to be that.

[Case]

Star of Bethlehem?

I'm not buying into the planetary alignment perceived as "a new star".
When the writer wrote about "a new star", the schooled travelers saw something that wasn't there before, like a comet or a (super)nova.
With planets, one can see them getting closer to each other every few days. Even shepherds in the field, without any science education, would be able to name them. No sudden new star in the sky with a planetary alignment.

[neufer]

Star of Bethlehem?

I'm not buying into the planetary alignment perceived as "a new star".
When the writer wrote about "a new star", the schooled travelers saw something that wasn't there before, like a comet or a (super)nova.
With planets, one can see them getting closer to each other every few days. Even shepherds in the field, without any science education, would be able to name them. No sudden new star in the sky with a planetary alignment.

Matthew's astrological travelers from the East would be scared to death by any comet or (super)nova.

But (as professionals in the field) they would be totally fascinated by a close planetary alignment in the direction of Judea
and they might well interpret this as being a propitious sign on which to act pro actively.

"Caspar" on the Caspian in 2 B.C. would see a sunset alignment of Venus & Jupiter 20 times closer
than the APOD sunrise alignment (as seen by some "Caspar" on the Caspian in 2008 A.D. ?)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar:

Code: Select all

Casper on the Caspian at sunrise  separation ~ 0.684°
Fri 2008 Feb 1 4:04

              Right                   Distance    From 53°45'N 38°50'E:
            Ascension    Declination      (AU)   Altitude Azimuth

Sun         20h 56m 27s   -17° 17.4'     0.985   -10.141  -74.533 Set
Venus       18h 41m 41s   -22° 21.8'     1.337     2.628  -45.030 Up
Jupiter     18h 43m 15s   -22° 56.6'     6.049     1.947  -45.090 Up
...........................................
Casper on the Caspian at sunset   separation ~ 0.034°
Tue -1 Jun 17 19:45

              Right                   Distance    From 53°45'N 38°50'E:
            Ascension    Declination      (AU)   Altitude Azimuth
Sun          5h 27m 59s   +23° 29.4'     1.017   -10.081  157.992 Set
Venus        8h 43m  9s   +19° 27.3'     0.655     5.799  115.319 Up
Jupiter      8h 43m 17s   +19° 27.0'     6.078     5.814  115.288 Up

I remember my dad driving me from northern Virginia to Chapel Hill
to hear a Morehead Planetarium lecture on the star of Bethlehem
(in the 1950's shortly after the original event ).
-------------------------------------

• Sky Guy: What’s important about star of Bethlehem is its message, not its science
  
  By Thomas R. Webber
  Monday, December 24, 2007
  
  http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/dec/2 ... hem-its-m/
  
  One of the more popular and commercialized symbols of Christmas is the star of Bethlehem that led the Magi from Persia to Jerusalem.Indeed, many planetariums offer holiday programs focused on this theme. Recent publications in astronomy, history and theology have brought the debate over the Christmas star back into the spotlight. Questions as to the star’s origins and validity are once again center stage.
  
  While the topic is vast, to be sure, let’s try to address some of the major points in a question-and-answer format.
  
  Q: Wasn’t the star of Bethlehem a star?
  
  A: No, not as we understand stellar astrophysics today. Stars are massive nuclear powerhouses, tens to hundreds of thousands of kilometers in diameter. In addition, their formation, life and death are measured in terms of millions of years. We must also remember that light travels at a finite speed. The light we see from a star on any given night could be hundreds to millions of years old.
  
  Q: So why do we refer to it as a “star?”
  
  A: Understanding of astronomy and the night sky during that period of history was primitive. The original Greek text used the word “aster,” which could apply to any celestial object. Further, the account was written 100 years after the fact and is mentioned in only one of the four Gospels. There is no independent confirmation to give us a clue as to its nature, duration and location.
  
  Q: Are there celestial objects that could have remained stationary and guided the Magi?
  
  A: Scripture suggests that the star stopped over the location where Jesus could be found. Nothing of astronomical origin could meet that requirement, as Earth’s rotation causes the celestial sphere to move from east to west (diurnal motion). Only objects in the far northern sky are circumpolar; that is, they travel along great circles around the north celestial pole. Even planets, which can move either east or west against the background of stars, ultimately must rise and set due to diurnal motion.
  
  Q: Couldn’t there be some remarkable celestial event when Jesus was born?
  
  A: Perhaps, if we knew in what time frame to look.
  
  Any historical analysis requires the establishment of a time line, but there is a contradiction as to the date of Jesus’ birth between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Matthew states that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod. Historians and archaeologists have determined Herod died in 4 B.C. Luke claims that Jesus was born during a census that occurred in 6 A.D., when Judea became part of the Roman Empire. Some theologians circumvent this contradiction by claiming the Magi did not visit Jesus until later in his life, not necessarily at the birth. As you can imagine, such is a heavily contested claim. But this window of nearly a decade makes it difficult to identify a celestial event that could be considered the Christmas star. Further difficulty arises when references to the star are unreliable and/or rooted in ancient astrological beliefs.
  
  Q: Are there any notions as to what the star was?
  
  A: Many ideas have been put forth as to what the star could have been. Some are weak, such as meteors, ball lightning and Uranus. Others, such as novae, supernovae, comets and planetary conjunctions, have more merit but still present problems.
  
  Q: So was the star a comet?
  
  A: Probably not. Comets were regarded by many cultures of the time as evil omens. It is unlikely that the Magi would have considered one the sign of a coming savior. The Christian theologian Origen (c. 185-254 A.D.) did try to posit that the star was a comet, claiming one also could foretell positive events. But his claim was later dismissed as an act of desperation.
  
  Q: So what about novae and supernovae? Are they the same thing?
  
  A: Novae occur in binary star systems. As one star spills gas onto the other, pressure builds and a thermonuclear reaction occurs. This can cause the brightness to increase thousands of times. A supernovae is the cataclysmic end of a medium-sized star’s life. When the core runs out of nuclear fuel, it collapses, generating a shock wave that causes the outer layers of the star to explode violently, increasing its brightness millions of times. Novae and supernovae are very dramatic and could have lasted long enough to guide the Magi from Persia to Jerusalem. However, no such event is recorded in our time frame.
  
  Q: What about planets?
  
  A: The motion of the individual planets was too familiar to have been of any real significance. But the story changes when we consider them in groups of two or more.
  
  Planetary conjunctions occur when planets appear very close to each other in the night sky, sometimes even eclipsing each other. Many scholars have considered such events as likely candidates for the Christmas star, especially since the Magi had adopted Babylonian customs and were believers in astrology (not to be confused with the real science of astronomy). Any planetary conjunction is going to take place within the zodiac — the plane of our solar system — and rise and set as dictated by diurnal motion. It would not remain stationary in the sky.
  
  The first such proposal was put forth by Roger Sinnot in 1968. He argued that the Venus-Jupiter conjunction in Leo that occurred on June 17 in 2 B.C. was the guiding star. It would have been visible in the western sky after sunset for roughly one hour and could have been perceived by the Magi as a confirmation of their quest.
  
  Sinnot’s proposal assumes that Leo was the astrological constellation representing Judea, although others argue that it could have been Pisces, Aries, Aquarius and Virgo or even nonzodiac constellations Andromeda and Aquila.
  
  Critics of this idea point out that while the Magi believed in astrology, early Jewish people did not. Further, this date contradicts Matthew’s account of King Herod being alive at the time of the birth.
  
  Q: Have any other planetary conjunctions been proposed?
  
  A: Yes. There was a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces in May of 7 B.C. and one of Venus, Saturn, Jupiter and the moon in April of 6 B.C. However, while these conjunctions might have had interesting astrological meaning, they both would have appeared in the eastern sky just before sunrise.
  
  Q: So what conclusion should we reach about the Christmas star?
  
  A: Because of the many discrepancies found in the accounts of the Christmas star and the lack of any independent record, many are now suggesting that the star was simply a literary device added to emphasize Christ’s birth. At best, it was an astronomical event that only the Magi would interpret as an astrological portent. But a mere ordinary astronomical event nonetheless.>>

[emc]

The Bible is not a science book but is a book of faith written by humans inspired by God - yet the writers are still processing data through their free-willed human minds. Little of what is mentioned in the Bible can be proven and there are more questions than answers regarding timelines of events (it's not a history book either). Like I said, it is a book of faith. Therefore, the "star of Bethlehem" could be outside the scientific realm... perhaps it falls under the same catagory as the "parting of the Red Sea".

We can choose to have faith or restrict ourselves to science alone.

BTW - The image of Jupiter and Venus is beautiful... and fortunately for me I get to drive to work in the AM heading east.

[neufer]

The Bible is not a science book but is a book of faith written by humans inspired by God - yet the writers are still processing data through their free-willed human minds. Little of what is mentioned in the Bible can be proven and there are more questions than answers regarding timelines of events (it's not a history book either). Like I said, it is a book of faith. Therefore, the "star of Bethlehem" could be outside the scientific realm... perhaps it falls under the same catagory as the "parting of the Red Sea".

We can choose to have faith or restrict ourselves to science alone.

BTW - The image of Jupiter and Venus is beautiful... and fortunately for me I get to drive to work in the AM heading east.

Apparently you are taking it on faith that the writers of the Bible actually were inspired "by God" as I don't know how one would prove such a thing scientifically.

All I'm saying is that Persian astrologers of that time would probably have been at least as inspired as yourself by a close conjunction of Venus & Jupiter (especially, the one that was 20 times closer on June 17, 2 B.C.). They may even have taken the time to travel to Jerusalem where they might have learned at the court of Herod about expectation of a Messiah to be born in the land of the Lion (Leo) of Judah: King David (i.e., Bethlehem).

Babylonian astrologers would already have been familiar with the
Jewish expectations of a Messiah and have come prepared with gifts:

Code: Select all

Tue -1 Jun 17 18:46 UTC (BABYLON)
Venus Jupiter separation ~ 0.064°
.
.             Right                   Distance    From 32°32'N 44°25'E:
.           Ascension    Declination      (AU)   Altitude Azimuth
.
Sun          5h 27m 49s   +23° 29.3'     1.017   -25.784  146.424 Set
Venus        8h 43m  0s   +19° 28.1'     0.655     3.682  110.798 Up
Jupiter      8h 43m 15s   +19° 27.1'     6.077     3.725  110.751 Up

BABYLON to Jerusalem       Azimuth: 93   (dist. 292 miles)
BABYLON to Elath    __     Azimuth: 108

I find it interesting to speculate that one (or more) of these possible events might have been incorporated in Matthew many years later.

But mostly I am reminiscing about a long ago Christmas vacation when my father was inspired to take me on a pilgrimage to Morehead Planetarium 266 miles away.

[emc]

I wasn't disagreeing with the theory about the June 17, 2 B.C. event at all. I was simply postulating another theory.

I am glad you have fond memories with your dad and it must be especiallly nice to be reminded by an astrological event as impressive as this.

[Czerno]

Neufer & al., would you correct me if I'm wrong, I understand the date of the mentionned conjunction to be "chronological" year 2 BC, -not allowing for a year zero- , alternatively, year -1, allowing for year 0. This is a bit confusing however (to me) : what is the usual convention in modern astronomical discussions ?

Regards

--
Czerno

[neufer]

Neufer & al., would you correct me if I'm wrong, I understand the date of the mentionned conjunction to be "chronological" year 2 BC, -not allowing for a year zero- , alternatively, year -1, allowing for year 0. This is a bit confusing however (to me) : what is the usual convention in modern astronomical discussions ?

Regards

--
Czerno

<<The "astronomical" dating system refers to an alternative method of numbering years. It includes the year "0" and eliminates the need for any prefixes or suffixes by attributing the arithmetic sign to the date. Thus, the astronomical date for 2000 CE is simply +2000 or 2000. The astronomical year 0 corresponds to the year 1 BCE, while the astronomical year -1 corresponds to 2 BCE. In general, any given year "n BCE" becomes "-(n-1)" in the astronomical year numbering system. Historians should take care to note the numerical difference of one year between "BCE" dates and astronomical dates.>>
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/dates.html

[FieryIce]

Nothing of astronomical origin could meet that requirement

Plain and simple, it is explainable with the only answer that is logically valid, a UFO with angel/extraterrestrials on board. So get over it and move on.

[craterchains]

Obviously this "star" (The original Greek text used the word “aster,” which could apply to any celestial object.) I.E. asterisk *, was low in our atmosphere, moving, and came to a stop over the destination.

We are not allowed to talk about such things as UFO's or ET in these threads, but if all other answers do not apply you have the truth left. 8)

[neufer]

Obviously this "star" (The original Greek text used the word “aster,” which could apply to any celestial object.) I.E. asterisk *, was low in our atmosphere, moving, and came to a stop over the destination.

There is nothing about the "star" being low in our atmosphere, moving, or coming to a stop over "the destination."

The wise men from the east (Babylon?) saw a "star" (recently when they were) in the east (Babylon?) which they, for some reason, interpreted to be sign of the birth of the Jew's Messiah. It was Herod's own priests and scribes who pointed them to "the destination" of Bethlehem not the "star" itself.
-------------------------------
Matthew 2 KJV

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard [these things], he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, [in] the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
-------------------------------
The Magi knew the TIME of the "star" (June 17, 2 BC ?) and had guessed at it's meaning but they still had to be directed to the specific place.

[craterchains]

"Obviously" MY words, it had to be low in our atmosphere, duh?

Now quote the part about the shepards please, , ,

Matthew 2:9
RSV with Apocrypha
When they had heard the king they went their way; and lo, the star
which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest
over the place where the child was.
New RSV
When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead
of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until
it stopped over the place where the child was.
King James Version
When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they
saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the
young child was.
New American Standard Bible
And having heard the king, they went their way; and
lo, the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before
them, until it came and stood over where the Child was.

[neufer]

"Obviously" MY words, it had to be low in our atmosphere, duh?

Now quote the part about the shepards please, , ,

Matthew 2:9 King James Version
When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they
saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the
young child was.

This is obviously a later added literary embellishment. No angels (or UFOs) in their right mind would dare to lead the Magi right TO the young child after they had placed themselves in a position where Herod's henchmen could be following them.

[emc]

This is obviously a later added literary embellishment. No angels (or UFOs) in their right mind would dare to lead the Magi right TO the young child after they had placed themselves in a position where Herod's henchmen could be following them.

Herod did not send henchmen or else they lost their way... If Herod had sent henchmen to follow the Magi and if the henchmen were any good at their job, the young child would have been henched. The Bible states that Herod asked them to report back but the Magi after being warned in a dream, returned home by a different route. So the writing indicates that Herod did not send henchmen.

What is most interesting is that the Bible accounting of the star does not fit with normal astrological physics. The biblical star moved and appeared according to the writings. But the writings are intrepretations and we don't know scientifically who was interviewed or how this information was passed to Matthew. The Bible writings tell us that the Apostles recieved instructions from God through the Holy Spirit. This requires faith also since it cannot be proven.

Like I mentioned earlier, the parting of water is no less an abnormal event. One has to have faith. The Venus and Jupiter occultation is a very good candidate, especially due to the timing, but it is not the only possibility if one has faith... whether faith is UFOs, physics or an act of God.

[neufer]

This is obviously a later added literary embellishment. No angels (or UFOs) in their right mind would dare to lead the Magi right TO the young child after they had placed themselves in a position where Herod's henchmen could be following them.

Herod did not send henchmen or else they lost their way... If Herod had sent henchmen to follow the Magi and if the henchmen were any good at their job, the young child would have been henched.

Henchman, n.; pl. -men. [OE. hencheman, henxman; prob. fr. OE. & AS. hengest horse + E. man, and meaning, a groom. AS. hengest is akin to D. & G. hengst stallion, OHG. hengist horse, gelding.] An attendant; a servant; a follower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito
http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/alex_graffito.htm

The Venus and Jupiter occultation is a very good candidate, especially due to the timing, but it is not the only possibility if one has faith... whether faith is UFOs, physics or an act of God.

Science is all about ideas that are "not the only possibility"
and yet are deemed worthy of consideration if not testing.

[emc]

Henchman, n.; pl. -men. [OE. hencheman, henxman; prob. fr. OE. & AS. hengest horse + E. man, and meaning, a groom. AS. hengest is akin to D. & G. hengst stallion, OHG. hengist horse, gelding.] An attendant; a servant; a follower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito
http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/alex_graffito.htm

Science is all about ideas that are "not the only possibility"
and yet are deemed worthy of consideration if not testing.

I forgot to add the "wink" emoticon after "henched" (me trying to be funny... I hope you weren't offended)... Not sure what the graffito is all about though???

Thanks for the lesson.

[neufer]

Henchman, n.; pl. -men. [OE. hencheman, henxman; prob. fr. OE. & AS. hengest horse + E. man, and meaning, a groom. AS. hengest is akin to D. & G. hengst stallion, OHG. hengist horse, gelding.] An attendant; a servant; a follower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito
http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/alex_graffito.htm

Science is all about ideas that are "not the only possibility"
and yet are deemed worthy of consideration if not testing.

I forgot to add the "wink" emoticon after "henched" (me trying to be funny... I hope you weren't offended)... Not sure what the graffito is all about though??? Thanks for the lesson.

I wasn't offended; I thought it WAS funny the first time.

No one else is quite sure what the graffito is all about either but it sure suggests being "henched."

I have mixed emotions about people who feel that they have to take ancient literature/scripture literally but it is fun to engage in this from time to time.

[emc]

neufer: I have fun exchanging with folks like yourself too. It is nice to have common ground admiring celestial objects and I learn some interesting things.

[FieryIce]

who feel that they have to take ancient literature/scripture literally

Art, you might want to read the book instead of taking to heart what others have said about the book for instance the one asking the questions of Ezra, the angel or ET about two to three millennium ago. That one asking the questions knew a heck of a lot more about science than Ezra did or even you do. Questions asked of him such as, "Go, weigh for me the weight of fire, or measure for me a blast of wind, or call back for me the day that is past … or show me the picture of a voice … if you solve one of them for me, then I will show you the way you desire to see … You cannot understand the things with which you have grown up; how then can your mind comprehend the way of the Most High?"

[auroradude]

Conjunctions of Venus and Jupiter occur quite regularly, about once every 1-1/2 to 2 years. As pretty as it can be, certainly it is not an event of biblical proportions.

[neufer]

Conjunctions of Venus and Jupiter occur quite regularly, about once every 1-1/2 to 2 years. As pretty as it can be, certainly it is not an event of biblical proportions.

Inferior conjunctions of Venus and the Sun also occur about every 1.6 years but Venus's orbit is enough off the ecliptic plane that an inferior conjunction of makes for a Venus Transit only about once every 61 years. But Venus Transits only require a Venus/Sun separation of ~ 0.25°. The Venus/Jupiter separation as observed from Babylon on June 17, 2 B.C. was four times closer than this (~ 0.064°) and should therefore only occur about once every 125 years (or about once every millennium if you actually expect it to be visible to YOU personally in the night sky).

[neufer]

who feel that they have to take ancient literature/scripture literally

Art, you might want to read the book instead of taking to heart what others have said about the book for instance the one asking the questions of Ezra, the angel or ET about two to three millennium ago. That one asking the questions knew a heck of a lot more about science than Ezra did or even you do.

I suppose you believe that Ezra rewrote the 204 books of the Old Testament from memory in just 40 days after the original Bible was destroyed (in Babylon).

The many 40 days in the Bible (like Noah's flood) all relate to the many 40 years involving the life Moses of Egypt and the 40 year cycle of Mercury Venus motions [i.e., 25 Venus synods = 40 (365 day) years = 126 Mercury synods]. Egyptian priests watched for the sunrise rising of Sirius every summer in order to predict the seasonal rising of the Nile so they had to keep track of the regular 40 year cycle of Mercury Venus motions (in order not to be confused by a morning star).

If the Mercury Venus cycle astronomical cycle was 37 years instead then Moses would have wandered in the wilderness for 37 years, Noah's flood would have lasted 37 days and and Ezra would have had to hand in his assignment in just 37 days. It all makes some sort of logical sense really...just not literal sense.

[auroradude]

Matthew 2 KJV

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard [these things], he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, [in] the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
------------------------------------------------

Forgive my confusion but in this version, the wise men come from the east and have seen the star in the east. That would mean that they traveled west, away from the star or that they came from the west?
-----------------------------------------------

With all the interpretations of the different languages editing and re-writes, let alone the easily impressed minds of the ancients, I am inclined to conclude that the Bible is not a good source for science or eye witness accounts.

[neufer]

Matthew 2 KJV
Forgive my confusion but in this version, the wise men come from the east and have seen the star in the east. That would mean that they traveled west, away from the star or that they came from the west?

I read it to mean that they saw the star when they were in the east.
(But then I have a bias to read it that way )

With all the interpretations of the different languages editing and re-writes, let alone the easily impressed minds of the ancients, I am inclined to conclude that the Bible is not a good source for science or eye witness accounts.

I agree, but one should always be somewhat suspicious of "history" in general, e.g.:

Uranus is a visible (Magnitude 5.5) planet with fair amount of parallax (in just 4 days!) that sits right on the ecliptic where people have recorded the motions of Saturn & Jupiter for millennia and even recorded the some of their (Magnitude 5) moons since 1610.

So why did it take until 1781 (171 years after Galileo) to discover Uranus
------------------------------­------------------------------­---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus

<<Sir William Herschel observed the planet on 13 March 1781 while in the garden of his house at 19 New King Street in the town of Bath, Somerset (now the Herschel Museum of Astronomy), but initially reported it (on 26 April 1781) as a "comet". Herschel "engaged in a series of observations on the parallax of the fixed stars", using a telescope of his own design.

He recorded in his journal "In the quartile near ζ Tauri … either Nebulous star or perhaps a comet". On March 17, he noted, "I looked for the Comet or Nebulous Star and found that it is a Comet, for it has changed its place". When he presented his discovery to the Royal Society, he continued to assert that he had found a comet while also implicitly comparing it to a planet:

“ The power I had on when I first saw the comet was 227. From experience I know that the diameters of the fixed stars are not proportionally magnified with higher powers, as planets are; therefore I now put the powers at 460 and 932, and found that the diameter of the comet increased in proportion to the power, as it ought to be, on the supposition of its not being a fixed star, while the diameters of the stars to which I compared it were not increased in the same ratio. Moreover, the comet being magnified much beyond what its light would admit of, appeared hazy and ill-defined with these great powers, while the stars preserved that lustre and distinctness which from many thousand observations I knew they would retain. The sequel has shown that my surmises were well-founded, this proving to be the Comet we have lately observed. ”

Herschel notified the Astronomer Royal, Nevil Maskelyne, of his discovery and received this flummoxed reply from him on April 23: "I don't know what to call it. It is as likely to be a regular planet moving in an orbit nearly circular to the sun as a Comet moving in a very eccentric ellipsis. I have not yet seen any coma or tail to it"
------------------------------­------------------------------­---