Advertisement

Archive for History of Exact Sciences

, Volume 73, Issue 1, pp 39–124 | Cite as

Ptolemaic planetary models and Kepler’s laws

  • Christián C. CarmanEmail author
  • Gonzalo L. Recio
Article
  • 142 Downloads

Abstract

In this article, we aim at presenting a thorough and comprehensive explanation of the mathematical and theoretical relation between all the aspects of Ptolemaic planetary models and their counterparts which are built according to Kepler’s first two laws (with optimized parameters). Our article also analyzes the predictive differences which arise from comparing Ptolemaic and these ideal Keplerian models, making clear distinctions between those differences which must be attributed to the structural variations between the models, and those which are due to the specific parameters Ptolemy determined in the Almagest. We expect that our work will be a contribution for a better understanding not only of the Ptolemaic theories for planetary longitudes through a clearer perception of the way in which Keplerian features are present—or absent—in Ptolemy’s models, but also for a more balanced judgement of different aspects of the contribution of the first two laws of Kepler to the modern astronomical revolution.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We want to thank Alexander Jones, Dennis Duke, Diego Pelegrin, Sandra Ponce and Gustavo Zelioli for their comments and suggestions of earlier versions of this paper. We would also like to express our thanks for the support of Research Projects PICT-2014-1741, PICT-2014-0775 and PICT-2016-4487 of the Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnológica of Argentina.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aaboe, A. 2001. Episodes From the Early History of Astronomy. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Copernicus, N. 1978. On the Revolutions, ed. J. Dobrzycki (trans: Rosen, E.) London: Macmillan Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  3. Dreyer, J.L. 1953. A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler. London: Dover.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Duke, D. 2005. Comment on the Origin of the Equant Papers by Evans, Swerdlow and Jones. Journal for the History of Astronomy 36(122): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans, J. 1984. On the Function and Probable Origin of Ptolemy’s Equant. American Journal of Physics 52: 1080.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans, J. 1988. The Division of the Martian Eccentricity from Hipparchos to Kepler: A History of the Approximations to Kepler Motion. American Journal of Physics 56: 1009–1024.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gingerich, O. 2011. The Great Martian Catastrophe and How Kepler Fixed it. Physics Today 64: 50–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones, A. 2004. A Route to the Ancient Discovery of Non-Uniform Planetary Motion. Journal for the history of astronomy 35: 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kepler, J. 2015. Astronomia Nova (trans: Donahue, W.H.) Santa Fe, NM: Green Lion Press.Google Scholar
  10. Meeus, J. 1998. Astronomical Algorithms, 2nd ed. Richmond, VA: Willmann-Bell Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Pedersen, O. 2010. A Survey of the Almagest: with annotation and new commentary by Alexander Jones. (A. Jones, Ed.) New York: Springer. Regiomontan (listed as Regiomontanus).Google Scholar
  12. Ptolemy, C. 1984. Almagest. In Ptolemy’s Almagest, ed. G. Toomer (trans: Toomer, G.), 27–659. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Recio, G., and C. Carman. 2018. On the Equant Point in the Planets and the Moon. Journal for the History of Astronomy. 49(4): 401–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Regiomontanus, J., and G. Peuerbach. 1543. Epitome, in Cl. Ptolemaei Magnam compositionem. Basel: Heinrich Petri.Google Scholar
  15. Swerdlow, N. 1973. The Derivation and First Draft of Copernicus’s Planetary Theory: A Translation of the Commentariolus with Commentary. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 117: 423–512.Google Scholar
  16. Swerdlow, N. M. 1989. Ptolemy´s Theory of the Inferior Planets. Journal or the History of Astronomy 20(1): 29-60. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Swerdlow, N. 2004a. An Essay on Thomas Kuhn’s First Scientific Revolution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 148(1): 64–120.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Swerdlow, N.M. 2004b. The Empirical Foundations of Ptolemy’s Planetary Theory. Journal for the History of Astronomy 35: 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Voelkel, J.R., and O. Gingerich. 2001. Giovanni Antonio Magini’s “Keplerian” Tables of 1614 and Their Implications for the Reception of Keplerian Astronomy in the Seventeenth century. Journal for the History of Astronomy 32: 237–262.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wilson, C. 1973. The Inner Planets and the Keplerian Revolution. Centaurus, 17(3): 205–248.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Nacional de QuilmesBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)Buenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations