Technically, planets are defined as celestial bodies with these characteristics, not astronomical bodies, and Earth, not being in the night sky, is not celestial. So if you want to play a technicality game then Earth might not be a planet right now.
You could not be more wrong about your correction. Not only is this definition current, it is in no way predicated on planets revolving around the Earth. The current IAU definition of a planet (the one that demoted Pluto) is:
"A planet is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit."
Very clearly says celestial body. The IAU does not seem to draw a distinction between celestial and astronomical bodies, and uses the terms interchangeably, but they are not synonyms. The distinction is usually irrelevant to those who need to make observations about astronomical bodies, so I can see why.
While you are correct that I misunderstood you, and thought you were talking about "planet", astronomers use "celestial body" to include the Earth, and have done so since the 1800s. Your comment started "Technically", so I believe you mean to use the astronomy definition, in which case your statement "Earth, not being in the night sky, is not celestial" is using non-technical language where I expected it to use technical language.
> Titan has long fascinated astronomers as the only moon known to possess a thick atmosphere, and as the only celestial body other than Earth to have stable pools of liquid on its surface.
> Their [the Chaldeans] ideas of the earth as a celestial body were also crude and imperfect.
The second from "A system of universal geography : or, A description of all the parts of the world, on a new plan, according to the great natural divisions of the globe, accompanied with analytical, synoptical, and elementary tables", vol. 1 (1847) at https://archive.org/stream/universalgeograp01maltuoft#page/n... :
> Theory of Geography. Of the Earth, considered as a celestial Body, and in its relations to the other celestial Bodies.
> 5thly-That the Earth, like every other celestial body, moves with accelerated velocity during the perihelion, and ...
You are also right that "celestial body" in popular use is often treated as a synonym for "heavenly body". This is a pre-Copernican viewpoint, expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:40 as "There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another."
However, you emphasized the technical definition, not the general culture use.
P.S. Did you mean "planets revolving around the Sun" instead of the Earth? Also, earlier you wrote "Earth, not being in the night sky, is not celestial", but I'll point out the Sun is also not in the night sky; is it also not celestial?
Isn't this just splitting hairs using the definition of "celestial?" If I were on Mars, then my observations of celestial bodies would certainly include observations of Earth. Can you please explain when the distinction is relevant?
