Scholarlink

<p>This paper analyzes Kepler’s ephemerides for 1604 and 1605, along with related documentation, in light of his evolving models for Mars. Drawing on known manuscripts, we present and examine Kepler’s calculations for both ephemerides—calculations that, although preserved in previously identified sources, have not yet been studied by scholars. By reconstructing these computations and analyzing the tables used as sources, we demonstrate that both ephemerides were based on a metopoid model, similar to the one described in chapter 46 of the <i>Astronomia Nova</i>. We also show that one of the tables used for the 1605 ephemeris contains a second table built under the model proposed in chapter 48. This case study captures a key moment in Kepler’s search for a physically grounded planetary theory, just before the final formulation of the <i>Astronomia Nova</i>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Mars’s models behind Kepler’s ephemerides of 1604 and 1605

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月12日

查看全文
  • Christián C. Carman

摘要

This paper analyzes Kepler’s ephemerides for 1604 and 1605, along with related documentation, in light of his evolving models for Mars. Drawing on known manuscripts, we present and examine Kepler’s calculations for both ephemerides—calculations that, although preserved in previously identified sources, have not yet been studied by scholars. By reconstructing these computations and analyzing the tables used as sources, we demonstrate that both ephemerides were based on a metopoid model, similar to the one described in chapter 46 of the Astronomia Nova. We also show that one of the tables used for the 1605 ephemeris contains a second table built under the model proposed in chapter 48. This case study captures a key moment in Kepler’s search for a physically grounded planetary theory, just before the final formulation of the Astronomia Nova.