ok let me put this nice and easy. what he did was this he used the rock cycle and added it to the atmosphere of the earths mass and the simply divided the diameter of the reproductive system by a capillary and then wala he had the answer of a fail
Kepler's calculations showed that Brahe's observations could be explained if:
-- the earth and the other visible planets travel in elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus of each ellipse;
and if
-- each body travels fastest when it's nearest the sun; a line from the sun to each body sweeps out
equal areas in equal periods of time.
His calculations made a strong case for this theory, but they didn't prove anything.
Kepler didn't prove anything. After years of study and analysis, he concluded that
each planet travels around the sun on a path the shape of an ellipse, with the sun
at one focus of the ellipse. But he never proved it, and even though he published
his conclusion five hundred years ago, it's still "just a theory".
Kepler's idea was only the best that anyone had come up with to describe the motions
of the planets that we actually see. And even though the theory of gravity that Newton
came up with a hundred years later said that planets had to move the way Kepler said
if the idea of gravity is correct, they're still both only theories. And even though both
theories work well enough to send men to the moon and bring them back, and send
space probes through the rings of Saturn, and place artificial satellites in orbits so
stable that they never seem to move in the sky, they're both still just theories.
Both theories have been generally accepted for hundreds of years. But the weird
thing about it is: They haven't ever been proven, but they can be dis-proven in a day.
If you come up with an explanation that fits the motions we see in the sky more
accurately than Kepler's theory does, and predicts things that haven't been noticed
yet but turn out to be true when we look for them, then Kepler's theory will be
tossed out, and yours will be accepted in its place.
That's how Science works. Science is not so much about proving things that
scientists want to prove. It's more about dis-proving things that a lot of people
believe but are wrong.
The way it simplified the explanation of the motions of all the celestial bodies.
Note:
Good scientists don't 'use' evidence to 'support' theories. Copernicus and Kepler were
a couple of the best, because they were smart enough to know that the evidence always
comes first, and that the theory ... the simplest and most reasonable explanation for the
observational evidence ... comes last. That's the way good science works.
Kepler's observations supported the fact that the plants orbit in an ellipse. He wrote the Laws of Planetary Motion stating all planets orbit the sun and all planets orbits are elliptical.
he supported the heliocentric theory
Her own observations and the observations of others
Inductive arguments
Hypothesis
Scientific Method
An anomaly refers to the position of a planet or satellite that is defined by its angular distance from its last perihelion. It is considered an irregularity in the motion of a planet or satellite.
Her own observations and the observations of others
that research and observations support the theorythat research and observations support the theory is the correct answer
Inductive arguments
Inductive arguments
physical observations in CPR
Inductive arguments
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
by interviewing the witnesses
Celestial objects in orbit.
because kepler was smart
he was born in Arizona