[HN Gopher] Something big just hit Jupiter
___________________________________________________________________
Something big just hit Jupiter
Author : RickJWagner
Score : 188 points
Date : 2021-09-20 11:51 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.universetoday.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.universetoday.com)
| suction wrote:
| "Big" is a very soft word to use in astronomy
| stronglikedan wrote:
| it's all relative
| [deleted]
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Alien-lifeform-infested Eros?
| space_ghost wrote:
| Wouldn't that require us to already have a casino there?
| somedangedname wrote:
| Sasa nat ke Belta, Inyalowda?
| tehbeard wrote:
| No this is closer to SCP-2399[1] It even happened while being
| observed...
|
| 1. https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-2399
| cbm-vic-20 wrote:
| This was found by an amateur astronomer in Brazil, who was taking
| pictures of Jupiter to see Io's shadow on the planet.
| vagrantJin wrote:
| The size of that flash was about as large as the jovian moon.
|
| I don't think my brain can fully comprehend Jupiter's size
| though. Reading about its size is one thing - bit forming that
| clear scale is nigh impossible for me.
| dahart wrote:
| Link to the impact video
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImVl_TfTFEY
| l0b0 wrote:
| If that's realtime, how is it possible for something so big to
| dissipate so quickly? I would've thought the flash would take
| anywhere from minutes to days to dissipate.
| abecedarius wrote:
| Is that real time? Not sped up / slowed down?
| morsch wrote:
| Sounds to me like it's real time:
| https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap210917.html
| _ph_ wrote:
| If you look at the frequency of the earth atmosphere flicker,
| it looks like roughly real time.
| blunte wrote:
| What would be the result if something this large hit Earth?
| elboru wrote:
| > Based on the images and video provided observers, the
| object's diameter is estimated at 20 meters
|
| The Chelyabinsk meteor was 20m and it damaged 7,200 buildings,
| it collapsed a factory roof and shattered windows (I have no
| idea the composition of either of both meteors but at least
| this gives some perspective):
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor
| seanw444 wrote:
| Chelyabinsk was 20m? That's surprisingly little damage for
| something equivalent to a massive light seen on Jupiter.
| shkkmo wrote:
| Chelyabinsk's light was probably similarly visible on
| Jupiter. The size of the light probably indicates the area
| illuminated by the explosion rather than the size of the
| explosion itself.
| WJW wrote:
| It was about as big as the
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor from 2013, so
| "extensive ground damage over an irregular elliptical area
| around a hundred kilometres wide, and a few tens of kilometres
| long". So you would have a bad day if it hit the specific part
| of the Earth where you were located but overall not much would
| happen.
| lordnacho wrote:
| It gives latitude and longitude numbers, bit how do they work?
| Latitude makes sense but longitude on earth is in relation to an
| arbitrary line that goes through roughly where I'm sitting.
|
| But I don't have a house on Jupiter, so what's it relative to?
| mikestew wrote:
| Best I can tell, it's not as simple as declaring a Jupiter
| version of Greenwich through which to draw that line. Not all
| parts of Jupiter rotate at the same rate. Anyway, there are
| three coordinate systems, and given that I'm not the one to be
| explaining such things, I'll just leave the PDF link here:
|
| https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/mop/files/2015/02/CoOrd_syste...
| ginko wrote:
| Any chance NASA's Juno probe could have taken close-ups?
| arbitrage wrote:
| Buried deep inside the article:
|
| > Based on the images and video provided observers, the object's
| diameter is estimated at 20 meters (ft). Similar to what happened
| with [the 1994 impact of the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9], this object
| is believed to be the remnant of a larger comet or asteroid that
| was captured by Jupiter's gravity that broke up shortly before
| the impact took place.
|
| I don't know what "20 meters (ft)" means. Probably a typo?
| dsjoerg wrote:
| I bet the author planned to fill in the number of feet later,
| and then forgot to.
| lgl wrote:
| Right? Besides that, considering Shoemaker-Levy was a 6 million
| megaton impact (according do wikipedia), saying this was
| "similar" is just very wrong. Still interesting and pretty cool
| to have been caught on camera though.
| simonh wrote:
| The 'Similar' is in relation to how Shoemaker-Levy was broken
| up by Jupiter's gravity, and that this object comes from a
| similar process.
| lgl wrote:
| Ah, you're right, i interpreted that comparison wrongly. In
| that sense then it's most probably right. Still, we don't
| have any evidence that this impact was from a comet, it was
| most likely just an asteroid plunging into it.
| FractalHQ wrote:
| Looks like the proto-molecule finally found the Milky Way.
| joconde wrote:
| Is this a The Expanse reference or did that name come from
| somewhere else? (I ask because I don't remember hearing that
| the proto-molecule came from outside the Milky Way)
| sharno wrote:
| Was just thinking about that, will we see the ring forming?
| marcodiego wrote:
| > Based on the images and video provided observers, the object's
| diameter is estimated at 20 meters (ft).
|
| A 20 meter object created a fireball that could be observed from
| earth?
| Gravityloss wrote:
| Yeah, stood out as surprisingly small. Jupiter diameter is
| about 140,000 km so isn't that flash at hundreds of kilometers
| across? I got 21 pixels while the planet is 500 pixels so
| 21*14000/500 = 588 km . Blurring might expand it though so in
| reality could be smaller.
|
| Tunguska was estimated 50-60 m diameter though I guess velocity
| could tend to be higher at Jupiter?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
| Gravityloss wrote:
| Nobody spotted the error?
|
| 21*140000/500=5880 km
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Jupiter's high gravity likely meant that it hit at a greater
| velocity than it would have if it impacted Earth.
|
| As a rule-of-thumb, asteroids hit at or above escape velocity.
| Earth's is 11 km/s, Jupiter's is 60 km/s.
|
| Energy is the linear product of mass, but _quadratic_ product
| of velocity. Hence, the ratio of an impactor 's energy hitting
| Jupiter vs Earth is not 6:1, but 36:1.
|
| Mind you, this is _nothing_ compared to what happens if even a
| mere pebble hits a neutron star!
| kamaal wrote:
| >>Mind you, this is nothing compared to what happens if even
| a mere pebble hits a neutron star!
|
| What would happen if a pebble hit a neutron star? I'd like to
| imagine the pebble would vaporize at contact or even before
| it(temperature/radiation etc)?
|
| EDIT:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star
|
| _The neutron star 's gravity accelerates infalling matter to
| tremendous speed. The force of its impact would likely
| destroy the object's component atoms, rendering all the
| matter identical, in most respects, to the rest of the
| neutron star._
| samstave wrote:
| Does something like that burn up in whatever Jupiter's
| atmosphere is?
|
| Are we seeing the flash of it burning up? or?
|
| What impact would something which was 20ft in diameter do to
| the earth?
| dhimes wrote:
| I think the proper energy to calculate is that of an object
| falling into the _Sun_ , being intercepted in its fall by the
| object it impacts.
| jaggederest wrote:
| Solar escape velocity near Jupiter orbit is only around
| 18km/s which is quite a bit less than Jupiter's own escape
| velocity.
| lumost wrote:
| Objects aren't falling into the sun from infinity, as
| gravity decays according to an inverse square law the sun
| imparts relatively little kinetic energy to a Jupiter
| impactor relative to Jupiter.
| dhimes wrote:
| To match the calculations by JPL/NASA, assume that the
| objects _are_ falling into the Sun from infinity.
| tegeek wrote:
| Objects move pretty fast in space, usually tens of kilometers
| per second. A 20 meter of diameter object with velocity of
| 10000 mps is pretty deadly impact from Earth's point of view.
| WJW wrote:
| Not really, the
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor was 20 meter
| diameter and hit the atmosphere at about 20 km/s. While there
| were some ~1500 injured people, the Earth as a whole did not
| really notice.
| filoeleven wrote:
| How much does the angle of impact come into play?
| bandyaboot wrote:
| I'm confused, what does the "(ft)" mean? Did they just forget
| to put a number there?
| samstave wrote:
| Fused Tachyons.
| MrWiffles wrote:
| I wondered the same thing. 20 meters is about ~65 feet, just a
| little bit longer than a standard semi truck and trailer you
| might see out on the highway that's hauling say, groceries. So
| my first thought was, "what kind of material would be that
| combustible to impact something at Jupiter's size and leave
| that big a flash lasting 2 whole seconds?"
|
| Someone else commented about the size of the flash relative to
| Jupiter itself and my understanding of that persons comment was
| that the flash was about 10 times the diameter of the object
| give or take a little. So 20 meters made a ~200 meter visible
| explosion.
|
| Now somebody correct me if I'm wrong here since I most likely
| am, but isn't Jupiter a gas giant? Meaning what we saw either
| detonated before hitting the surface, or what we saw was only
| the light from the impact explosion that made it through the
| gas/atmosphere layer above it at the point of impact. If the
| latter, the actual visible yield would have been higher than
| what we saw, right?
| rbanffy wrote:
| In order to be visible, the flash must have happened above
| the top cloud layer. The surface is well below that - Jupiter
| is mostly atmosphere, with a little bit of extremely
| compressed planet in its middle.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Meaning what we saw either detonated before hitting the
| surface
|
| Since last I heard the understanding waa Jupiter probably
| does not have a solid surface to hit at all, "before" should
| probably be "without".
| stan_rogers wrote:
| "Combustible" doesn't matter. Nor, really, does "impact" in
| the sense of one objectively solid body striking another
| objectively solid body. Think Chelyabinsk - the actual "thing
| hitting the ground" impact was a relative nothingburger, and
| all of the excitement happened at altitude.
| kdumont wrote:
| Thanks, Jupiter!
|
| Jupiter is thought to be one of the reasons earth is so
| hospitable, with its high gravity protecting inner planets from
| some comets and space debris [1].
|
| I, for one, think we need a Jupiter appreciation day.
|
| https://earthsky.org/space/is-it-true-that-jupiter-protects-...
| NHQ wrote:
| If it hit Jupiter on the inner orbit side, then whatever struck
| the outer planet already missed us (if it was ever within our
| orbit to begin with). Since we can see the impact from Earth,
| it must have struck the inner orbit side.
| kijin wrote:
| It could have been captured from another angle and swung
| around wildly before its orbit finally intersected the
| "surface" of Jupiter.
| meowface wrote:
| Is that something people searching for ET life look out for?
| Systems with a potentially habitable planet + at least one
| large celestial object to draw debris towards it and away from
| the potentially habitable planet?
| Chris2048 wrote:
| Hmm, I wonder if there are lots of variables that go into
| "likelihood of being hit by asteroid" - e.g. the size of the
| central star in the first place, and the resulting radius of
| the hab zone.
|
| It's also of not: if earth hadn't been hit by at least _some_
| asteroids, it mightn 't have any water.
| pc86 wrote:
| Are we able to see far-away systems in this level of detail?
| I know we can calculate number of planets and rough
| size/makeup, but are we able to tell that Planet A is in the
| habitable zone and Planet B is 300x+ the mass of Planet A,
| etc?
| rbanffy wrote:
| We can for a lot of systems. The shorter the orbital
| period, the easier they are to detect, however, and to
| detect Jupiter from a nearby system we'd need to be _very_
| lucky.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Yes, at least using the transit method.
|
| Sometimes, we do use the Doppler shift caused by a planet
| pulling the star towards or away from us. That works as
| long as the orbital plane is not perfectly perpendicular to
| us. However, it only works for large planets (and
| reasonably sized stars) that have sufficient gravity to
| make the star move fast enough to see the light shift red
| or blue. An earth-mass planet would be undetectable
| compared to a Jovian planet.
|
| The transit method requires the orbital plane to be
| perfectly on axis so we can observe an eclipse as the
| planet passes between the star and our telescope. This is
| rare, but works for even small planets, as long as the
| angle is right. And if one angle is right, it's likely that
| others will be close enough as well; a large planet can
| also be observed. In systems that are at the right angle,
| Kepler often found several planets:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered
| _...
| areoform wrote:
| There are some astronomers who believe that the converse is
| also true - Jupiter also flings in Kuiper-Belt Objects into
| Earth-Crossing Orbits. The results are complicated,
| https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/49/1/1.22/306978
|
| Relevant quote,
|
| _> The flip side of the coin is also true, however -- for an
| object to threaten the Earth, it first has to have an Earth-
| crossing orbit. Were Jupiter absent, there would be far fewer
| short-period comets, and it is likely that the asteroid belt
| would be far less heavily stirred, though it is also true that,
| without Jupiter, the asteroid belt would no doubt look very
| different! Every encounter between a small body and Jupiter is
| random -- it throws objects inwards as well as outwards, and
| can just as easily place objects onto an Earth-crossing orbit
| as it can remove them from these orbits. Therefore, it is clear
| that at least some of the objects that hit the Earth would not
| have done so, had Jupiter not played a role._
|
| _> Whether Jupiter acts as a friend or a foe comes down to the
| balance between the two effects discussed above -- does Jupiter
| provide more of a shielding effect, or is the contribution to
| the terrestrial impact flux so enhanced by the objects it
| throws our way that this outweighs its defensive work? In order
| to examine this balance, we are in the process of a series of
| detailed integrations, following the behaviour of hundreds of
| thousands of potential impactors in a range of theoretical
| solar systems. Given that there are three reservoirs of
| potentially hazardous objects (the Oort Cloud, the Edgeworth-
| Kuiper belt, and the asteroid belt), our study will be looking
| at each of these reservoirs in turn._
|
| It is currently unclear whether the net effect is harmful or
| beneficial. But what we do know is that the fact that we are
| dyadic system (i.e. our moon is arguably the size of a planet -
| and we exist in a pair with it) has protected us during Sol's
| younger and more active days. More specifically it protected us
| from ending up like Mars with a stripped away atmosphere. This
| hypothesis is fairly well studied and is held to be very likely
| to be true.
|
| Our moon, along with Jupiter, may also act as interference for
| the Earth w.r.t. Earth-crossing asteroids. There are arguments
| against this because of the smaller size of the Moon, but there
| are also some analyses for this - given that the asteroids are
| affected by the Moon's gravity, and even though the Earth-Moon
| Barycentre lies within the Earth, the combined system _may_
| afford some protection. (i.e. asteroids are more likely to have
| more near misses given the displacement of the barycentre from
| the centre of the Earth). But this is a guess, and more study
| is needed.
|
| Papers,
|
| When the Moon had a magnetosphere -
| https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abc0865
|
| The timeline of the Lunar bombardment - revisited. -
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.03756.pdf
|
| The Late Heavy Bombardment in The Inner Solar System: Is there
| Any Connection To Kuiper Belt Objects? -
| https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.61...
|
| Bashing holes in the tale of Earth's troubled youth -
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01074-6
| dylan604 wrote:
| I think there would be a lot of push back from christian based
| religions. They would be offended at the mere suggestion. So if
| you're really wanting this, be prepared for a fight.
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _I think there would be a lot of push back from christian
| based religions. They would be offended at the mere
| suggestion._
|
| Perhaps from some of the fundamentalist sects, but unlikely
| from the liberal mainline branches; we'd recognize "Jupiter"
| as referring to the planet, not the Roman name of the Greek
| mythological Zeus.
| drhagen wrote:
| Given that Western civilization worshiped Jupiter as top god
| for a thousand years, you would be in good company historically
| [1] to have have a Jupiter appreciation day.
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(mythology)#Religious_...
| sillyquiet wrote:
| The sky father was the chief god of the steppe people that
| lived north of the Black and Caspian Seas during the
| Neolithic into the Bronze Age, so 'Jupiter' as such was
| worshiped for 2000 years before the Greek speakers called him
| that.
|
| As these people (according to all the currently most accepted
| archaeological and linguistic evidence) are the ancestral
| culture of most of Europe, Iran, and India (with the
| exception of the native Dravidians), it makes sense the
| Greeks as well as most of the religions of Europe and
| southwest Asia also worshipped him.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| The etymology of Jupiter is also fascinating.
| https://www.etymonline.com/word/jupiter
|
| > also Juppiter, c. 1200, "supreme deity of the ancient
| Romans," from Latin Iupeter, Iupiter, Iuppiter, "Jove, god
| of the sky and chief of the gods," from PIE _dyeu-peter-
| "god-father" (originally vocative, "the name naturally
| occurring most frequently in invocations" [Tucker]), from
| _deiw-os "god" (from root *dyeu- "to shine," in derivatives
| "sky, heaven, god") + peter "father" in the sense of "male
| head of a household" (see father (n.)).
|
| Greek and Sanskrit also had similar deities:
|
| > Compare Greek Zeu pater, vocative of Zeus pater "Father
| Zeus;" Sanskrit Dyaus pitar "heavenly father."
|
| Basically the Greeks dropped the `-pater` bit and `Zeus`
| remained.
|
| Whether or not these deities were similarly associated with
| the planet Jupiter is a different question though.
| scns wrote:
| Hm, Jove and Yahwe are pretty close i'd say.
| ithkuil wrote:
| We have no idea how the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH is
| supposed to be pronounced. And there are no etymological
| common roots between this semitic root and the attested
| Indo-European origin of Iove.
|
| It's possible that the Yahweh vocalization has been
| influenced by the Roman Catholic church in order to
| "romanize" christianity
| sillyquiet wrote:
| > Whether or not these deities were similarly associated
| with the planet Jupiter is a different question though.
|
| Very doubtful, those names are modern applications to the
| planet. Although, there is zero doubt they were aware of
| and cognizant of the visible planets and their motions
| and no doubt had important names for them, it wasn't what
| western astronomers called them, almost certainly.
|
| Also Dyaus Pater was a god of the _daylight_ sky for the
| most part, which in the steppes, as you can imagine, made
| him pretty important and omnipresent.
| pigscantfly wrote:
| I've been researching these cultural echoes of the Proto
| Indo-Europeans online for some time now; it's fascinating
| that over a billion people (Catholics, etc.) use roughly
| the same term 'Deus Pater' to describe their supreme deity
| up through the modern day without full cognizance of the
| concept's historical roots. Sky father worship may be the
| most highly conserved human cultural idea of all time.
|
| Do you have any suggestions for reading material (ideally
| academic in book form) that covers the archaeological
| and/or linguistic reconstruction research in depth?
| sillyquiet wrote:
| The best accessible archaeology reference I can recommend
| is "The Horse, the Wheel, and Language", and that book
| can guide you to many other resources.(https://press.prin
| ceton.edu/books/paperback/9780691148182/th...)
|
| Though the research is a _tad_ dated since we have more
| genetic evidence since it was written, and there are many
| disputes about the author 's assertions about the timing
| of the advent of horse riding, it still stands up very
| well. AFAIK the genetic research made since the book's
| publication has only strengthened his archaeological and
| linguistic arguments.
| pigscantfly wrote:
| Thank you very much! I will order it.
| jsjohnst wrote:
| Doesn't exactly fit your request, but maybe consider
| reading the book Suns of God too:
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Suns-God-Krishna-Buddha-
| Unveiled/dp/1...
| ducktective wrote:
| I think by steppe people, you are referring to Indo-
| Europeans (Aryans). There is also a sky-god in Tengrism
| (Mongols, Turks). But are either of those actually
| referring to the planet Jupiter?
| sillyquiet wrote:
| Nah, the naming of the planet came much later, I don't
| think the planet itself was ever worshipped.
|
| And the Proto-Indo-Europeans are not the Aryans - the
| Aryans were a much later daughter culture in Western
| Afghanistan, Northern Iran and India, and probably the
| folks that had the beliefs outlined in the first pages of
| the Rig Veda.
|
| The steppe people I am referring to are the people of the
| Yamnaya culture and related peoples within their horizon.
| The Mongols and Turks were relative late comers to the
| western steppes.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Pretty sure "Aryans" is a 19th and 20th century term used
| for the Indo-Europeans (or roughly approximating "Indo-
| Europeans"), hence the association of "Aryan" and 20th
| century race ideology (e.g., theories of an "Aryan
| homeland" was in Germany, that the Germans were a pure
| Aryan race, etc).
| sillyquiet wrote:
| The racialists of the late 19th Century and early 20th
| co-opted the term, but there was a real peoples that
| really called themselves 'Aryans'. They weren't blue eyed
| blonde-haired, that's for sure, and the weren't at the
| root of Europe either. Like I said, they were a central
| Asian daughter culture. They probably spoke Indo-Iranian
| and their beliefs were later written down in the Riga
| Veda as well as being a component of Iranian
| Zoroastrianism.
|
| ('Aryan' is cognate with the proto-Indo-European
| 'h2eyos')
| fsckboy wrote:
| > They weren't blue eyed blonde-haired, that's for sure
|
| ok but the world-wide "suppress melanin/blue eyes" gene
| emerged in that same part of the world (north of the
| Black Sea) some 10,000 years ago, so it seems that the
| Aryans could have been as blue eyed as anybody.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20091101055254/http://www.tel
| egr...
| sillyquiet wrote:
| well, possibly, but as they are probably the ancestors of
| many North Indian, Iranian, and Afghanistani peoples that
| gene didn't stay dominant for their line. (Though I guess
| it shows up in that region now and again).
|
| And they certainly weren't the 'Aryan ideal' as pictured
| in racist propaganda.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I agree, I wasn't disputing that there were real people
| who self-identified with the term, I was contesting your
| correction that "Aryan" solely refers to these people.
| You might counter that the overloaded meaning is invalid
| for whatever reason, but (1) meanings of the propriety of
| words are boring and subjective and (2) I'm only saying
| there exists an overloaded meaning, not that everyone
| will find it valid nor that it excludes the validity of
| other meanings.
|
| As an aside, I recently discovered (from my new Iranian
| neighbors) that the term "Aryan" is cognate with "Iran"
| the country. "Iran" in Persian means something like "Land
| of the Aryans", and that in 1935 the government of Iran
| asked its diplomatic partners to refer to it as Iran
| instead of Persia because of the popularity of Aryan
| racial ideologies.
| sillyquiet wrote:
| Ah gotcha, yeah, the notion of the 'Aryans' as the
| ancestors of Europe was a common misconception of early
| European archaeology even when it didn't have the racist
| propaganda connections.
| iKevinShah wrote:
| In India, Jupiter is called as "guru" (Sanskrit:bRhspti).
| bRhspti roughly translates to "guru" of the gods.
| geoffjentry wrote:
| Interesting. Is there any connection in Sanskrit for that
| word to Dyaus [1], as that deity was an equivalent of
| Zeus/Jupiter
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyaus
| MonkeyClub wrote:
| Isn't that Thursday every week?
| globular-toast wrote:
| Not because they understood the gravity thing, though. I've
| always thought civilisations that worship the Sun have the
| right idea.
| sillyquiet wrote:
| Jupiter, along with Zeus, Tyr, and a whole host of others are
| cognate with the Proto-Indo-European *Dyeus ph2ter, literally
| 'sky father'.
| osrec wrote:
| So do many Eastern civilisations...
| ohnohell wrote:
| Ok...
| phreack wrote:
| I suggest Thursday!
| mongol wrote:
| I suggest Saturnday
| macintux wrote:
| Wouldn't Wednesday (Woden's Day) be more appropriate?
| obelos wrote:
| Wednesday is the planetary day of Mercury, who is more
| cognate with Odin.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| I think Jupiter was also Zeus, but not AFAIK Odin.
|
| https://www.ancient-literature.com/are-zeus-and-odin-the-
| sam...
| nicoburns wrote:
| Thursday is literally named after jupiter in latin and
| latin based languages (french, spanish, etc)
| aylons wrote:
| Ha, just now I realized "Jeudi"... lucky day today!
|
| But just some romance languages. Portuguese does not.
| [deleted]
| globular-toast wrote:
| All seven days of the week are named after the classical
| planets, or the Germanic/Norse equivalent of the Roman
| gods: Mercury (Wednesday, Woden/Odin's day), Venus
| (Friday, Frig's day), Mars (Tuesday, Tiw's day), Jupiter
| (Thursday, Thor's day), Saturn (Saturday), the Sun
| (Sunday), and the Moon (Monday). Some make more sense in
| other languages, e.g. French has _Lundi_ ( _Lune_ /Moon),
| _mardi_ (Mars), _mercredi_ (Mercury), _jodi_ (Jupiter),
| _vendredi_ (Venus) ( _samedi_ refers to the Sabbath and
| _dimanche_ to God, though).
| cobbzilla wrote:
| The Germanic Thursday is "Thor's day", I guess Jupiter is
| more like Thor than Odin/Woden.
| dkersten wrote:
| Even "Thor's day" is linked to Jupiter, in that Thor and
| thunder gods were the equivalent of the thunder god
| Jupiter:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thursday#Thor's_day
| SirFatty wrote:
| Old English/Norse.
| cobbzilla wrote:
| to be more specific, yes. I was going with the least
| specific branch of the tree that was still different and
| widely recognizable.
| sillyquiet wrote:
| Odin is not Zeus, although in he assumed a lot of Zeus's
| place in the Norse pantheon.
|
| The mostly forgotten proto-Germanic god Tyr's name however
| _is_ cognate with Zeus, Jupiter, Dyaus, and the other sky
| father gods.
| osrec wrote:
| In Hindu culture, Jupiter is known as Brihaspati, and
| Thursday is known as Brihaspati-var (the day dedicated to
| Jupiter).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-20 23:02 UTC)