Models of the Heavens: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Tycho and Kepler
How four models of the heavens were built to save the same sky, what each explained, and four ways to judge one model better than another (an interpretation).
At a glance · about 2 minutes
Four models compared
Ptolemy
- Earth at rest
- Deferents, epicycles, equant
- Venus never round
Copernicus
- Sun at rest
- Retrograde motion as overtaking
- Order and scale; tables little better
Tycho
- Earth at rest, planets circle the Sun
- Same relative motions as Copernicus
- Venus can be full
Kepler
- Ellipse with the Sun at one focus
- Equal areas; T^2 = a^3
- Fits Tycho's data; Newton gave the cause
In brief
Ptolemy, Copernicus, Tycho and Kepler each built a model to reproduce the same sky, with the planets' retrograde loops as the hardest test. This page shows what each explained, why the phases of Venus refuted Ptolemy's arrangement but not Tycho's, and how Kepler's laws fitted Tycho's data. It ends by asking what makes one model better than another.
Key ideas
- A model of the heavens must save the daily turning of the sky, the motions of the Sun and Moon, and the planets' retrograde loops, which for Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are centred on opposition. Ptolemy did it with deferents, epicycles and an equant, a device that at its best stays within about ten minutes of arc, though the tables in use did worse.
- Copernicus explained retrograde motion as the Earth overtaking a planet and read Ptolemy's separately fitted ratios as distances from the Sun, but his tables were not clearly more accurate. The phases of Venus refuted Ptolemy's arrangement and left Copernicus's and Tycho's standing.
- Kepler's ellipses and equal areas (1609) and T^2 = a^3 (1619) fitted Tycho's data, and Newton later supplied a cause. A better model can mean better fit, simplicity, cause or prediction, so say which one you are using.
Read the full pageHide the full page · 7 min
This page follows four models of the heavens and asks what made one better.
What a model must save
Established A model must reproduce the daily turning of the sky (The Sky as a Sphere: Days, Seasons and the Phases of the Moon), the Sun's yearly path at uneven speed, the Moon's motion, and the wandering of the five bright planets. Each planet drifts eastwards against the stars but at times runs backwards for weeks or months, in retrograde motion. For Mars, Jupiter and Saturn the middle of the backward arc falls at opposition, when the planet stands opposite the Sun in the sky (Linton, From Eudoxus to Einstein, ch. 3). The lab shows the retrograde loops.
Ptolemy: deferent, epicycle and equant
In the Almagest (about AD 150) Ptolemy keeps the Earth at rest and gives each planet a small circle, the epicycle, whose centre rides on a larger circle, the deferent. His order outwards is Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn (Almagest IX.1). On the side nearest the Earth, the epicycle carries the planet backwards faster than the deferent carries it forwards. To fit the planet's changing speed around the zodiac, Ptolemy put the Earth off the deferent's centre. That alone could not place the retrograde arcs correctly, so he made the epicycle's centre sweep equal angles in equal times about a third point, the equant. That broke the old rule of uniform motion about a circle's centre. For Mars, on a deferent of radius 60, the Earth sits 6 units to one side of the centre and the equant 6 to the other, an eccentricity of 6 in 60, or 0.10 (Linton, pp. 76 and 78).
An equant can stay within ten minutes of arc (sixtieths of a degree) of modern theory, even for Mars (Linton, p. 76). The tables in use did worse: in 1563 Ptolemaic tables missed a conjunction (lining-up) of Jupiter and Saturn by nearly a month (MacTutor).
Copernicus: overtaking, order and scale
In De revolutionibus (1543) Copernicus sets the Sun at rest and makes the Earth a planet. The planets' stations (apparent stops) and retrogradations are then "not movements of the planets, but a motion of the earth" (I.9, trans. Rosen). The Earth, at a mean 29.8 km/s, overtakes Mars, at 24.1 km/s, as it passes between Mars and the Sun, at opposition. Mars then seems to slide backwards against the stars. With circular orbits in one plane, a calculation for this page gives Mars a backward arc of 16 degrees over about 73 days, every 780 days. Real Mars loops from 1997 to 2040 last 60 to 81 days (JPL elements).
With the Sun at the centre, the longer a planet's period, the farther it lies from the Sun. Copernicus saw here "a marvelous symmetry of the universe", which explains why the backward arcs shrink from Mars to Jupiter to Saturn (I.10). Ptolemy's numbers hide the distances. Counting in sixtieths, he gave Venus an epicycle of 43;10 (43 and 10/60) on a deferent of 60, a ratio of 0.719; Venus lies 0.723 astronomical units (AU, about the Earth's mean distance) from the Sun. Mars's ratio, 39;30 over 60 or 0.658, matches 1/1.524 = 0.656, the Earth's distance over Mars's. Ptolemy fitted each ratio separately. For Copernicus, Venus's epicycle is Venus's orbit, and the epicycles of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are the Earth's, so each ratio gives a distance from the Sun.
Established The gain is in explanation, not prediction. Copernicus kept off-centre circles and epicycles but dropped the equant, which seemed to him "neither perfect enough nor sufficiently in accord with reason" (Commentariolus, written by 1514), using small epicycles instead. The historian Owen Gingerich found "relatively little to distinguish between the accuracy of the Alfonsine Tables and the Prutenic Tables", based on Ptolemy and Copernicus respectively (quoted in the Stanford Encyclopedia).
Tycho: a compromise
In Tycho Brahe's system, published in 1588, the Earth is at rest, the Moon and Sun circle it, and the five planets circle the Sun. Each planet then moves relative to the others as in Copernicus's system; only what is at rest differs. Tycho could find no stellar parallax, the yearly shift in the stars' positions that a moving Earth would cause unless the stars were enormously far away (MacTutor). His observations had errors mostly between 0.5 and 1 minute of arc.
The phases of Venus
In an anagram sent on 11 December 1610 and solved on 1 January 1611, Galileo reported that Venus imitates the phases of the Moon (letters in Kepler's Dioptrice, trans. Carlos). He had seen it round, then half lit. A full Venus lies beyond the Sun (Newton, Principia III, Phaenomenon III). Venus's phase depends on the angle at Venus between the Sun and the Earth, not, as the Moon's nearly does, on its elongation: shade its sunlit half and see how much faces the Earth. Ptolemy placed Venus below the Sun and kept its epicycle's centre nearly in line with the Sun as seen from the Earth (Linton, pp. 62 and 78). A calculation for this page shows that Venus is then at most about half lit and never round. So a round Venus refutes Ptolemy's arrangement, but not Tycho's, in which Venus circles the Sun and can pass beyond it. A strong test is one on which rivals predict different results (Hypotheses, Predictions and Tests). This one was strong against Ptolemy and silent between Copernicus and Tycho.
Kepler: ellipses, areas and a harmonic law
From Tycho's observations of Mars at opposition, Kepler built a circle-and-equant model that gave Mars's direction from the Sun to within about 2 minutes of arc. But Mars's distances put the circle's centre midway between the Sun and the equant. Moved there, the model was out by up to 8 minutes, well beyond Tycho's errors. Kepler wrote that "these eight minutes alone will lead us along a path to the reform of the whole of Astronomy" (Astronomia Nova, chapter 19).
The outcome, in Astronomia Nova (1609), was two laws. Law 1: a planet moves on an ellipse with the Sun at one focus. Law 2: the line from the Sun to a planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. He later found they held for the other planets too (MacTutor). Law 3, in Harmonices Mundi V (1619): the square of a planet's period T is proportional to the cube of its semi-major axis a, half the ellipse's longest diameter. See laws 1 and 2 in the lab.
Check law 3. In years and AU, T^2 = a^3: for Mars (a = 1.524, T = 1.881) both sides are 3.54. So log T = 1.5 log a, and across the six planets Kepler knew the log-log slope is 1.500 with JPL's mean elements; the lab, with NASA fact-sheet distances, gives 1.499 for the same six (its note explains Saturn). Compare the Academy's Prop. XII.
Kepler's own cause, a force from the rotating Sun, did not survive. Demonstrated, given Newton's laws of motion: his Principia (1687) shows that a force towards a fixed centre gives equal areas in equal times (Book I, Proposition 1), that an ellipse about a focus needs a force varying inversely as the square of the distance (Proposition 11), and that such ellipses obey the third law (Proposition 15). Kepler also predicted a transit of Mercury across the Sun's face, which Gassendi saw on 7 November 1631. Its success helped win astronomers over to Kepler's ellipses and area law (Athreya and Gingerich).
What makes a model better
Interpretation. On this page's reading, four tests run through this history.
- Fit is agreement with the data within the observers' error. Tycho's data demanded better than an equant's ten minutes.
- Simplicity is how much is explained rather than fitted. Copernicus read Ptolemy's separately fitted ratios as distances.
- Cause is a reason why. Kepler sought one and Newton supplied it.
- Prediction is foretelling what has not been seen, as Kepler did for a transit.
Before Newton, no model won on all four. Osiander's unsigned foreword to De revolutionibus said that hypotheses "need not be true nor even probable" if they give a calculus consistent with the observations. Kepler's title, Astronomia Nova "or celestial physics", claims more. Every model also rests on measurements and stated assumptions, as in Eratosthenes Measures the Earth: Shadows, Angles and Stated Assumptions; see also The Order of the Seven Liberal Arts: Substance, Quantity and the Mind.
Try this
- Draw the Earth, Sun and Venus in four positions under Ptolemy's arrangement and four under Tycho's, shading Venus's sunlit half. Find which drawings let the Earth see a full disc.
- Check the third law for Saturn: period 10,755.699 days, semi-major axis 1,432.041 million km (NASA fact sheet) or 9.537 AU (JPL). Use 365.256 days a year and 149.598 million km an AU. T^2/a^3 comes to about 0.99 and 1.00. Suggest why two published semi-major axes could differ.
Further reading
- Copernicus, On the Revolutions, I.9-10, trans. Rosen (math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/renaissance.astro/1.1.Revol.html).
- Galileo, The Sidereal Messenger, with Kepler's preface to the Dioptrice (Project Gutenberg ebook 46036).
- Newton, Principia, Motte's translation, Book I Propositions 1, 11 and 15 (Wikisource).
Check yourself
Answer each question from memory before you open it. Retrieval, not rereading, is what makes learning last (see the weekly loop). Grade yourself honestly and the study dashboard will bring each card back just before you'd forget it.
-
recall
In Ptolemy's planetary models, what are the epicycle, the deferent and the equant?
Show answer
The epicycle is a small circle that carries the planet, and its centre rides on a larger circle, the deferent. The equant is a third point, off the deferent's centre, about which the epicycle's centre sweeps equal angles in equal times. It broke the old rule of uniform motion about a circle's centre, and Copernicus dropped it.
-
recall
State Kepler's three laws and say where each was published.
Show answer
Law 1: a planet moves on an ellipse with the Sun at one focus. Law 2: the line from the Sun to a planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. Both are in Astronomia Nova (1609), which states them for Mars; Kepler later found they held for the other planets. Law 3: the square of a planet's period is proportional to the cube of its semi-major axis, T^2 = a^3 in years and astronomical units, in Harmonices Mundi V (1619).
-
explain
How does Copernicus explain the retrograde motion of Mars, and why does the loop come at opposition?
Show answer
He makes it an effect of the Earth's own motion: stations and retrogradations are "not movements of the planets, but a motion of the earth". The Earth moves faster than Mars (a mean 29.8 against 24.1 km/s) and overtakes it as it passes between Mars and the Sun, so Mars seems to slide backwards against the stars. With the Earth between Mars and the Sun, Mars stands opposite the Sun in our sky, so the middle of the backward arc falls at opposition.
-
apply
Ptolemy gives Jupiter an epicycle of 11;30 on a deferent of 60. Reading the ratio as Copernicus would, how far is Jupiter from the Sun in astronomical units?
Show answer
11;30 is 11 and 30/60, or 11.5, so the ratio is 11.5/60, about 0.19. Like those of Mars and Saturn, Jupiter's epicycle stands for the Earth's orbit, so the ratio is the Earth's distance over Jupiter's. Jupiter is therefore about 60/11.5 = 5.2 AU from the Sun.
-
connect
"Hypotheses, Predictions and Tests" separates strong tests from weak ones. How do the phases of Venus illustrate the difference?
Show answer
A strong test is one on which rivals predict different results. Venus's phases were strong against Ptolemy, whose arrangement forbids a round Venus. They were silent between Copernicus and Tycho, whose arrangements both allow it, so the test removed one rival and left two.
Open questions
No answer key. Think them through, write a paragraph, or argue them out with someone; the aim is a better question.
- The unsigned foreword to De revolutionibus says that hypotheses need not be true so long as they give a calculus consistent with the observations, while the title of Kepler's Astronomia Nova promises celestial physics. Should a model of the heavens be judged by fit alone? What would each side say about Ptolemy's equant?
- Copernicus explained why Ptolemy's epicycle ratios take the values they do, yet his tables were hardly more accurate. Is explanation a reason to prefer a model when the predictions are equal? What would you mean by explain here?
- Tycho took the missing stellar parallax as evidence that the Earth is at rest, and Copernicans answered that the stars are immensely far away. On the evidence available in 1600, whose reply carried more weight, and what was each side assuming?
Sources
- Linton, C. M. (2004). From Eudoxus to Einstein: A History of Mathematical Astronomy. Cambridge University Press, chapter 3 (The Ptolemaic universe), pp. 51-84, quoting Ptolemy's Almagest in Toomer's 1984 translation (p. 60, note 16).
- Copernicus, N. On the Revolutions (De revolutionibus, 1543), trans. E. Rosen (Johns Hopkins University Press); Osiander's foreword and Book I, chapters 9 and 10, as reproduced at math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/renaissance.astro/1.1.Revol.html.
- Copernicus, N. Commentariolus (written by 1514), opening and Seventh Postulate, trans. N. M. Swerdlow, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 117 (1973), 423-512; extract at employees.csbsju.edu/cgearhart/courses/honors210/Astro/Commentariolus_extract.pdf (the extract's header misprints the volume as 177).
- Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler. The Sidereal Messenger, and a part of the preface to Kepler's Dioptrics (Augsburg, 1611) containing Galileo's letters on Venus, trans. E. S. Carlos (London: Rivingtons, 1880), Project Gutenberg ebook 46036.
- Newton, I. The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, trans. A. Motte (American edition 1846), Wikisource: Book I, Propositions 1, 11 and 15; Book III, Phaenomena III to V; Life of Sir Isaac Newton (publication date).
- MacTutor History of Mathematics: biographies of Johannes Kepler and Tycho Brahe, and Quotations by Johannes Kepler (mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk).
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nicolaus Copernicus, sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.5 and 2.6 (plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/), quoting O. Gingerich (1993); and Johannes Kepler (Summer 2015 archive), sections 4.2 and 4.4.
- Tufts University, Philosophy 167, lecture notes for Class 3: Kepler's Astronomia Nova, the Orbit of Mars (16 September 2014), dl.tufts.edu/downloads/s4655t006.
- NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Planetary Fact Sheets for Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn (nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/), and JPL Solar System Dynamics, Keplerian Elements for Approximate Positions of the Major Planets, Table 1 (ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/approx_pos.html).
- Athreya, A. and Gingerich, O. (1996). An Analysis of Kepler's Rudolphine Tables and Implications for the Reception of His Physical Astronomy. Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 28, abstract 1996AAS...189.2404A (ADS).
- Wikipedia (secondary, used only where marked): Tychonic system; Apparent retrograde motion (table of planetary retrograde constants); Alfonsine tables; Transit of Mercury; Astronomia nova; Owen Gingerich.