Skip to main content
Book cover

Hypotheses and Perspectives in the History and Philosophy of Science pp 295–345Cite as

On the Conceptualization of Force in Johannes Kepler’s Corpus: An Interplay Between Physics/Mathematics and Metaphysics

Abstract

In this chapter, we present the concept of force in Kepler. We follow the development of this concept during Kepler’s scientific career, starting from his early considerations in the Mysterium Cosmographicum (1596) until his ripest conceptions expounded in the Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae (1618–1621). Kepler tried to supply a dynamical explanation to the planetary movements. This is an important novelty because astronomy was traditionally a kinematical science. Based on the main accredited literature we present a historical account and theoretical/nature of science (NoS) developments: (1) Keplerian forces; (2) physical astronomy; and (3) orbits, force, and the relation between distances and forces. Koyré had a prominent role in the studies on astronomical revolution and on Kepler. He was also important in fully clarifying the pivotal function that physical astronomy—and hence the concept of force—had in Kepler’s system of the world. Indeed, Koyré is still nowadays an almost unavoidable reference point for Kepler’s Forschung. We refer to several interpretations of his. This is the reason why we think appropriate to present this work in homage to Alexandre Koyré.

Keywords

  • Kepler
  • Newton
  • Koyré
  • Concept of force
  • Gravity
  • Virtus Tractoria
  • Virtus Promotoria
  • Relationships Physics–Mathematics
  • Science in context
  • Nature of science
  • Comparative history of physics
  • Historical epistemology of science
  • Mysterium Cosmographicum
  • Astronomia Nova
  • Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-61712-1_16
  • Chapter length: 51 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-61712-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 16.1
Fig. 16.2
Fig. 16.3
Fig. 16.4
Fig. 16.5
Fig. 16.6
Fig. 16.7

Notes

  1. 1.

    A terminological specification: while dealing with the term “force” in Kepler, we refer to Latin words used by Kepler as vis and virtus. Kepler spoke of vis and virtus and of their actions, but did not define them. This means, we are free to use the English term “force” to indicate these concepts, without being compromised with Newton’s concept of force . For the sake of brevity, we avoid an introduction about de motu locali related to the genesis of the theory of impetus from Aristotle (384–322 BC)/John Philoponus (490–570) to Jean Buridan (ca. 1300–ca. 1360; see Buridan 1509), Nicolas d’Oresme (1320? 1325?–1382), and so on, until to Niccolò Tartaglia (1499?–1557). Tartaglia also presented contributions to the art of warfare in Nova scientia (Tartaglia 1537, Books I–II) and Quesiti et inventioni diverse (Tartaglia 1554, Books I–III; Pisano and Capecchi 2015).

  2. 2.

    Here, we mention the works to which we have directly referred in the running text and other important contributions which are, at least in part, dedicated to the concept of force in Kepler: Baigre (1990); Baker and Goldstein (1994); Beer and Beer (1975); Blum and Helmchen (1987); Bussotti (2011); Boner (2013); Caspar ([1948] 1962); Cohen (1994, 2011, pp. 161–177); Davis (1981, 1992e), Delambre ([1817] 1965, [1819] 1965, [1821] 1969); Dijksterhuis ([1950] 1961, part IV, C, §§ 36–50, 53–55); Donahue (1981, 1994, 1993, 1996); Dreyer ([1906] 1953, chap. XV); Elena (1983); Gingerich (1975); Goldbeck (1896); Granada (2010); Guidi Itokazu (2006, 2007); Holton (1956); Hoyer (1979); Ihmig (1990); Jaballah (1999. Two volumes. First volume: pp. 60–80; second volume: pp. 39–43, pp. 78–85); Jammer (1957, chap. V); Jardine (1984, 2000); Koyré (1934, 1957, 1961a, b, c); Knobloch (1997, 2012); Krafft (1975, 1991); Martens (2000); Mittelstrass (1972); Petroni (1989); Pisano and Bussotti (2013); Rabin (2005); Radelet–de Grave (1996, 2007, 2009); Schuster (2000, 2013); Small (1804); Stephenson ([1987] 1994a); Treder (1975); Voelkel (1999); and Westfall (1971).

  3. 3.

    Koyré also wrote about the way to develop the history of science. This aspect is significant in his research on astronomical revolution. See Koyré 1963, 1961a; see also 1961b, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1986. His reply to Henry Guerlac’s (1910–1985) talk (Guerlac 1963; see also Crombie 1963) was superb. Recently, on the subject, see Pisano and Bussotti 2015a, b.

  4. 4.

    On Mysterium Cosmographicum see: Aiton (1977) and Field (1979, 1988). Recently, see also Pisano and Bussotti 2012.

  5. 5.

    “[…] Numerus, Quantitas, et Motus Orbium” (KGW, I, p. 9, line 34; see Fig. 3; authors’ translation).

  6. 6.

    KGW, I, p. 69, lines 1–4. See also Kepler 1981, p. 197.

  7. 7.

    KGW, I, p. 70, lines 21–22. See also Kepler 1981, p. 199.

  8. 8.

    With regard to the force of the Sun or, anyway, to the force acting between the Sun and planets (also considering the occurrences where Kepler speaks of the hypothesis, which he refuses, in which the planets have a soul producing a motive force, too), Kepler uses two words: vis and virtus. The latter is used far more than the former. In particular: vis is used at p. 11, line 11 and at p. 71, line 13, whereas virtus at: p. 11, lines 5 and 21; p. 70, lines 23 and 29; p. 71, line 9; pp. 71–72, lines 38–1; p. 72, lines 1, 11, 12, 27; p. 76, lines 25 and 26; p. 77, lines 4 and 22. The two words are also used with different meanings with which we do not deal.

  9. 9.

    KGW, I, p. 72, lines 1–6. See also Kepler 1981, p. 209.

  10. 10.

    KGW, I, p. 71, lines 13–20. See also Kepler 1981, p. 201.

  11. 11.

    Aiton’s note 7 and 8 to Chapter XX of the Mysterium. See Kepler 1981, p. 249; Aiton 1977, 1978.

  12. 12.

    Cfr. Stephenson [1987] 1994a, pp. 13–14.

  13. 13.

    For this problem, see KGW, I, p. 70, lines 18–34. Quotation, p. 70, lines 25–26.

  14. 14.

    “Sicut igitur fons Lucis in Sole est., et principium circuli in loco Solis, scilicet in centro: ita nunc vita, motus et anima mundi in eundem Solem recidit: vt ita fixarum sit quies, Planetarum actus secundi motuum” (KGW, I, p. 70, lines 24–26).

  15. 15.

    January 4, 1643 according to the Gregorian calendar; December 25, 1642 according to the Julian calendar. Newton’s country switched from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar in September 1752.

  16. 16.

    See, in particular, Propositions I–IX of the third book of the Principia, Newton [1726] [1739–1742] 1822, III, vol. III, pp. 17–40; see also Newton 1687; [1713] 1729. Particularly in Newton’s Geneva edition, our work in progress proposes a critical translation from Latin into English of the whole Newton Geneva Edition (1822) of the Principia (Oxford University Press, 2020, 5 Vols.; see recently Bussotti and Pisano 2014a, b; Pisano and Bussotti 2016).

  17. 17.

    We mainly refer to his studies within Theoremata circa centrum gravitatis solidorum as an appendix of the Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze attinenti alla meccanica e ai moti locali (1638). On these studies and their relationships with Kepler’s science see Pisano and Bussotti 2012.

  18. 18.

    As to the concept of gravity in Kepler, see Elena (1983), the fundamental Goldbeck (1896), Ihmig (1990) and Trader (1975).

  19. 19.

    “Gravitas est. affectio corporea, mutua inter cognata corpora ad unitionem seu conjunctionem (quo rerum ordine est. et facultas Magnetica).” (KGW, III, p. 25, lines 21–23, author’s parentheses. See also Kepler 1992, p. 55.)

  20. 20.

    “Si Luna et Terra non retinerentur vi animali, aut alia aliqua aequipollenti, quaelibet in suo circuitu; Terra ascenderet ad Lunam quinquagesimaquarta parte intervalli, Luna descenderet ad Terram quinquaginta tribus circiter partibus intervalli: ibique jungerentur: posito tamen, quod substantia utriusque sit unius et ejusdem densitatis.” (KGW, III, p. 25, lines 37–41; see also p. 27, 11–15; Kepler 1992, p. 55.)

  21. 21.

    We remark that in a letter to Maestlin on March 5, 1605 (KGW, XV, pp. 170–176) Kepler defined the force of the Sun that determines the movements of the planets as virtus promotoria because it induces the movement through a mechanism different from gravitational attraction (virtus tractoria). In the Astronomia nova Kepler gave such virtus promotoria the name of virtus motrix.

  22. 22.

    KGW, VII, p. 79. Original Latin text: “Iovis certe corpus umbram jacit, ut Terra et Luna, Veneris corpus parte a Sole aversa lumine caret, ut Terra et Luna.”

  23. 23.

    KGW, VII, Book IV, Part I, chapter entitled “ De raritate et densitate horum sex globorum. Quid tenendum?” pp. 283–284. See, for example, Koyré 1961a, b, c, pp. 354–356.

  24. 24.

    With regard to the difficult problems concerning the relations among these three aspects of Kepler’s thought, we mention, without any claim to be exhaustive: Barker-Goldstein (2001); Bialas (2003); Boner (2006, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013); Bruhn (2005); Escobar (2008); Fabbri (2009); Field (2009); Gingerich (2011); Granada (2009); Grössing (2003, 2005); Haase (1998); Juste (2010); Menschl (2003); Rabin (1997); Schwaetzer (1997); Stephenson (1994b); Voltmer (1998); and Westman (2001). On the structure of science Nagel (1961) is always of interest (for our aims).

  25. 25.

    To the relations between Sun–planets–fixed stars and the Holy Trinity is dedicated the Primariae Demonstrationis Delineatio, second chapter of the Mysterium Cosmographicum (KGW, I, pp. 23–27). See also Pisano Bussotti 2012, pp. 126–127; Peuerbach 1473; Pichler 2003.

  26. 26.

    Cfr.: Davis 1992e, p. 181; Stephenson [1987] 1994a, pp. 4–7.

  27. 27.

    “Punctum mathematicum, sive centrum mundi sit sive non, nequit movere gravia neque effective neque objective.” (KGW, III, p. 24, lines 37–38. See also Kepler 1992, p. 54.)

  28. 28.

    “Leve vero nihil est. absolute, quod corporea materia constat, sed comparate levius est., quod rarius est. sive natura sua, sive ex accidente calore.” (KGW, III, p. 27, lines 16–17. See also Kepler 1992, p. 57.)

  29. 29.

    “Aliter ego definio gravitatem, seu illam vim, quae intrinsece movet lapidem, vim magneticam coagmentantem similia, quae eadem numero est. in magno et parvo corpore, et dividitur per moles corporum accipitque dimensiones easdem cum corpo re. Itaque si lapis aliquis esset pone Terram positus in notabili aliqua proportione magnitudinis ad molem Telluris, et casus daretur, utrumque liberum esse ab omni alio motu: tunc ego dico futurum, ut non tantum lapis ad Terram eat, sed etiam Terra ad lapidem, dividantque spatium interjectum in eversa proportione ponderum.” (KGW, III, p. 456, Nachbericht.)

  30. 30.

    We have no room here to deal with the difference between masses and weights (namely weight-force). As to this problem, also in connection with the relationship between physics and mathematics, see: Pisano 2011, 2013a; Pisano and Capecchi 2013; Gillispie and Pisano 2014; Dhombres 1978, 2013; Alvarez and Dhombres 2011. On foundations of mathematics, see an interesting essay by Heinzmann (2009).

  31. 31.

    “Nam si quis hoc sequeretur, is peccaret jam in aliam varietatis legem, introducens copiam materiae non inaequalem, sed eandem per omnes planetas. Multiplicata enim mole Saturni 10, in densitatem 5, prodiret copia materiae 50, tantundem scilicet, quantum, si molem Iovis 5 in densitatem ejus 10 multiplicasses.” (KGW, VII, p. 283, lines 31–34.)

  32. 32.

    Kepler speaks of Jupiter in the mentioned lines (KGW, VII, pp. 283–285).

  33. 33.

    “Si Terra cessaret attrahere ad se aquas suas; aquae marinae omnes eleverentur, et in corpus Lunae influerent. Orbis virtutis tractoriae, quae est. in Luna, porrigitur usque ad Terras, et prolectat aquas sub Zonam Torridam, quippe in occursum suum quacunque in verticem loci incidit, insensibiliter in maribus inclusis, sensibiliter ibi ubi sunt latissimi alvei Oceani, aquisque spaciosa reciprocationis libertas.” (KGW, III, p. 26, lines 1–7; see also Kepler 1992, p. 56.)

  34. 34.

    “Omnis substantia corporea, quatenus corporea, apta nata est. quiescere omni loco, in quo solitaria ponitur, extra orbem virtutis cognate corporis.” (KGW, III, p. 25, lines 9–10. See also Kepler 1992, p. 55.) Several references to Kepler’s concept of inertia are available in a recent Leibnizian book of one of us (Bussotti 2015, Chap. 3). Particularly on Leibniz, on the occasion of his anniversary, see Leibniz and the Dialogue between Sciences, Philosophy and Engineering, 1646–2016 (Pisano, Fichant, Bussotti and Oliveira 2017; Bussotti and Pisano 2017).

  35. 35.

    Clearly, this conception of inertia is different from Newton’s, but also from Galilei’s and Descartes’. See also De Gandt 1995; Pute and Mandelbrote 2011; Bussotti and Pisano 2013; Shank 2008.

  36. 36.

    “Sequitur enim, si virtus tractoria Lunae porrigitur in Terras usque, multo magis virtutem tractoriam Telluris porrigi in Lunam et longe altius, ac proinde nihil eorum quod ex terrena materia quomodocunque constat, inque altum subvehitur, complexum hunc fortissimum virtutis tractoriae unquam effugere.” (KGW, III, p. 27, lines 11–15. See also Kepler 1992, p. 57.)

  37. 37.

    Kepler called “libration” the approaching and moving away of a planet to/from the Sun. The libratory or librating force is the force responsible for the radial motion.

  38. 38.

    This adjective is not used in Astronomia Nova, but in the letter to Fabricius mentioned in Footnote 31.

  39. 39.

    KGW, III, Chapter XXXIII, p. 236, lines 12–16. Original Latin text: “quo longius abest Planeta a puncto illo, quod pro centro mundi assumitur, hoc debilius illum incitari circa illud punctum: necessarium est. igitur, ut causa hujus debilitationis insit aut in ipso Planetae corpore, eique insita vi motrice, aut in ipso suscepto mundi centro.” See also Kepler 1992, p. 376.

  40. 40.

    KGW, III, Chapter XXXIII, p. 236, lines 20–21. Original Latin text: “Ut hic intentio et remissio motus, cum accessu et recessu a centro mundi, in proportione perpetuo coincidit.” See also Kepler 1992, p. 376.

  41. 41.

    We use here the word speed, high or low speed, to indicate what Kepler calls “intentio et remissio motus.” This is the almost universally accepted translation. However, in the next section we show that not all scholars agree this is the right translation.

  42. 42.

    KGW, III, Chapter XXXIII, p. 237, lines 14–16. Original Latin text: “Quod si itaque elongatio centri mundi a corpore Planetae, praestat Planetae tarditatem, appropinquatio velocitatem; fons itaque virtutis motricis in illo suscepto mundi centro insit necesse est.” See also Kepler 1992, p. 377.

  43. 43.

    On this question Koyré 1961a, b, c, pp. 202–205 and the connected note 18, p. 408, is exhaustive.

  44. 44.

    We deal with the exact meaning of the word immateriata in the next section while providing the interpretations of Kepler’s thought. In this section we wish only to present Kepler’s theory without interpretation as far as this is possible.

  45. 45.

    Ibidem, Chapter XXXIII, p. 241, lines 4–6. Original Latin text: “Videntur autem pugnantia, materia carere, et tamen dimensionibus Geometricis subjacere: diffundi per mundi amplitudinem, et tamen nuspiam esse nisi ubi est mobile.” See also Kepler 1992, p. 382.

  46. 46.

    Ibidem, Chapter XXXIII, p. 241, lines 7–10. Original Latin text: “Respondetur autem sic: quamvis virtus motrix non sit materiale quippiam, quia tamen materiae hoc est. corpori Planetae vehendo destinatur, non liberam esse a legibus Geometricis, saltem ob hanc materialem actionem transvectionis” (Ivi, p. 241, lines 7–10). See also Kepler 1992, p. 383.

  47. 47.

    See, for example, Dreyer [1906] 1951, pp. 387–388; Caspar [1948] 1962, p. 143; and Dijksterhuis [1950] 1961, IV, 44. Koyré is quite prudent on this aspect and, although he seems to agree with Dreyer’s, Caspar’s, and Dijksterhuis’s interpretation, he does not underestimate the difficulty of an exegesis of Kepler’s assertions (Koyré 1961a, b, c, pp. 210–214).

  48. 48.

    Stephenson [1987] 1994a, pp. 73–74 and see the figure on p. 73.

  49. 49.

    See our quotation from Astronomia Nova in the previous section (KGW, III, p. 241, lines 7–10).

  50. 50.

    As far as the difference among the magnetic fibers is concerned, a good explanation is given by Koyré 1961a, b, c, Chapter L’Epitome, in particular Note 43 and connected text.

  51. 51.

    KGW, VII, pp. 594–595. With permission of the Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  52. 52.

    KGW, VIII, Book V, Part II, Chapters IV–V, pp. 390–396. See also Caspar’s Nachbericht (KGW, VII, pp. 598–600) and Stephenson (Stephenson [1987] 1994a, pp. 154–172).

  53. 53.

    We have no room to deal with the problem of the relationships between physics and mathematics inside physics, in particular with regard to the definition of the forces. We suggest to the reader Pisano 2011; Barbin and Pisano 2013; and Pisano 2014.

  54. 54.

    “Nel processo di costruzione delle equazioni non interviene mai alcuna considerazione dinamica: un tolemaico avrebbe potuto accettare senza grossi problemi il modo di procedere di Keplero” (Petroni 1989, p. 192, pp. 190–196).

  55. 55.

    Davis (2003) expounds and tries to prove a well-defined historiographical thesis: it is improper to speak of speed or velocity in Kepler. Concepts such as those of movements or change of movements cannot be equated, in a Keplerian perspective, with our modern concept of velocity or speed. In the paper a series of interesting considerations on the use of Euclidean geometry in Kepler is developed.

  56. 56.

    For this problem, see Bussotti 2015, Section 6.1.2.1, pp. 121–125.

  57. 57.

    Cfr.: Stephenson [1987] 1994a, pp. 130–137.

  58. 58.

    See also Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae (KGW, VII) discussed above.

  59. 59.

    This discussion also refers to other metaphysical aspects that, for the sake of brevity, we avoid facing. For example: the Aristotelian conviction that the series of natural numbers is potentially infinite, but it cannot be considered as an actually infinite entity (Aristotle 1999, Physics, Book III, Chapter VI; Id., (1801), Metaphysics, Book IX, Chapter VI); the problematization of infinity by Plato (also Pythagoreans), where the universe could be represented by a finite arrangement of natural numbers (Aristotle 1999, Physics, Book III, Chapter IV).

  60. 60.

    Kepler [1606] 1859, p 687 (KGW, I, Chap. XXI, pp. 251–252).

  61. 61.

    Ivi, p 688 (KGW, I, Chapter XXI, pp. 252–253).

  62. 62.

    Ivi, p 689 (KGW, I, Chapter XXI, p. 253).

  63. 63.

    “[…] denique quicquid fere librorum Astronomicorum ex illo tempore edidi, id ad unum aliquod capitum, hoc libello propositorum, referre potuit, cuius aut illustrationem aut integrationem contineret” (KGW, VIII, p. 9, lines 25–28).

References

  • Abattouy M (2006) The Arabic transformation of mechanics: the birth of science of weights. Foundation for Science Technology and Civilisation 615:1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abattouy M, Renn J, Weinig P (2001) Transmission as Transformation: The Translation Movements in the Medieval East and West in a Comparative Perspective. Science in Context 14:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiton E J (1977) Kepler and the “Mysterium Cosmographicum”. Sudhoffs Archive 61/2:73–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiton E J (1978) Kepler’s Path to the Construction and Rejection of his First Oval Orbit for Mars. Annals of Science 35/2:173–190.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez C, Dhombres J (2011) Une histoire de l’Imaginaire mathématique. Hermann, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (1801) The metaphysics of Aristotle, Translated from the Greek; with Copious Notes in which the Pythagoric and Platonic dogmas respecting numbers and ideas are unfolded from ancient sources. Thomas Taylor (ed). Davis–Wilks–Taylor, Chancery–Lane, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (1999) Physics. Translation by Waterfield R. The Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baigre BB (1990) The justification of Kepler’s ellipse. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21/4:633–664.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Barbin E, Pisano R 2013 (eds) The Dialectic Relation between Physics and Mathematics in the XIXth Century. Springer, Dordrecht.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Barker P, Goldstein BR (1994) Distances and velocity in Kepler’s astronomy. Annals of Science 51:59–73.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Barker P, Goldstein BR (2001) Theological Foundations of Kepler’s Astronomy. Osiris 16:88–113.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Beer A, Beer P (1975) (eds) Kepler. Four Hundred Years, Vistas in Astronomy 18. The Pergamon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bialas V (2003) Keplers Vorarbeiten zu seiner Weltharmonik. In Pichler 2003, pp. 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum J, Helmchen W (1987) Von Kepler zu Newton. Von den Planetenbahnen zum Gravitationsgesetz. Praxis Mathematica 29/4:193–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boner P (2006) Kepler’s Living Cosmology. Bridging the Celestial and Terrestrial Realms. Centaurus 48/1:32–39.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boner P (2008) Life in the Liquid Fields. Kepler, Tycho and Gilbert on the Nature of Heavens and Earth. History of Science 46/3:275–297.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boner P (2009) A Tenuous Tandem: Patrizi and Kepler on the Origins of Stars. Journal for the History of Astronomy 40/4:381–391.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boner P (2011) Kepler’s Imprecise Astrology. In Mehl 2011, pp. 115–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boner P (2013) Kepler’s Cosmological Synthesis: Astrology, Mechanism and the Soul. Brill, Boston.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bruhn S (2005) The musical Order of the World: Kepler, Hesse, Hindemith. Hillsdale, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buridan J (1509) Acutissimi philosophi reverendi magistri Johannis Buridani subtilissime questiones super octo phisicorum libros Aristotelis diligenter recognite & revise a magistro Johanne Dullaert de Gandavo antea nusquam impresse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bussotti P (2011) The circulation of Kepler’s cosmological ideas in Italy during Kepler’s lifetime. In Mehl 2011, pp. 197–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bussotti P (2015) The Complex Itinerary of Leibniz’s Planetary Theory. Springer-Birkhäuser, Basel.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bussotti P, Pisano R (2013) On the Conceptual and civilization Frames in René Descartes’ Physical Works. Advances in Historical Studies 2/3:106–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bussotti P, Pisano R (2014a) Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica “Jesuit” Edition: The Tenor of a Huge Work. Accademia Nazionale Lincei-Rendiconti Matematica e Applicazioni 25/4:413–444.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bussotti P, Pisano R (2014b) On the Jesuit Edition of Newton’s Principia. Science and Advanced Researches in the Western Civilization. In Pisano 2014 3/1:33–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bussotti P, Pisano R (2017) Historical and Philosophical Details on Leibniz’s Planetary Movements as Physical–Structural Model. In Pisano R, Fichant M, Bussotti P and Oliveira ARE. The Dialogue between Sciences, Philosophy and Engineering. New Historical and Epistemological Insights. Homage to Gottfried W. Leibniz 1646–1716. The College Publications, London, pp. 49–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caspar M ([1948] 1962) Kepler. Collier, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen FH (1994) The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen FH (2011) How Modern Science Came into the World: Four Civilizations, One Seventeenth-Century Breakthrough. The University of Amsterdam Press, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crombie AC (1963) (ed) Scientific change: historical studies in the intellectual, social and technical conditions for scientific discovery and technical Invention, from antiquity to the present–Symposium on the history of science, University of Oxford, 9–15 July 1961. Heinemann education books, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis AEL (1981) A Mathematical Elucidation of the Bases of Kepler’s Laws. The University Microfilms International, Amm Arbor–Mi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis AEL (1992a) Kepler’s Resolution of Individual Planetary Motion. Centaurus 35/2:97–102.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Davis AEL (1992b) Kepler’s “Distance Law”–Myth, not Reality. Centaurus 35/2:103–120.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Davis AEL (1992c) Grading the Egg. Kepler’s Sizing–Procedure for the Planetary Orbit. Centaurus 35/2:121–142.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Davis AEL (1992d) Kepler’s Road to Damascus. Centaurus 35/2:143–164.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Davis AEL (1992e) Kepler’s Physical Framework for Planetary Motion. Centaurus 35/2:165–191.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Davis AEL (2003) The Mathematics of the Area Law: Kepler’s successful proof in Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae (1621). Archive for History of Exact Sciences 57/5:355–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis AEL (2007) Some plane geometry from a cone: the focal distance of an ellipse at a glance. The Mathematical Gazette 91/521:235–245, 520–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Gandt F (1995) Force and geometry in Newton’s principia. The Princeton University Press, Princeton–New Jersey.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dealmbre JB ([1817] 1965) Histoire de l’astronomie ancienne. Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York and London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delambre JB ([1819] 1965) Histoire de l’astronomie du Moyen Âge. Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York–London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delambre JB ([1821] 1969) Histoire de l’astronomie modern. Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York and London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhombres J (1978) Nombre, mesure et continu : épistémologie et histoire. Cedic–Nathan, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhombres J (2013) Pierre–Simon de Laplace (1749–1827). Le parcours d’un savant. Hermann, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijksterhuis EJ ([1950] 1961) The Mechanization of the World Picture. The Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donahue WH (1981) The dissolution of celestial spheres 1595–1650. Arno Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donahue WH (1993) Kepler’s first thoughts on oval orbits: text, translation and commentary. Journal for the History of Astronomy 24/1–2:71–100.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Donahue WH (1994) Kepler’s invention of the second planetary law. British Journal for the History of Science 27/92–1:89–102.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Donahue WH (1996) Kepler’s approach to the oval of 1602, from the Mars notebook. Journal for the History of Astronomy 27/4:281–295.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer JLE ([1906] 1953) History of planetary systems from Tales to Kepler. Dover, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elena A (1983) On the different kinds of attractive forces in Kepler. Archive Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences 33:22–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escobar JM (2008) Kepler’s Theory of the Soul: A Study on Epistemology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 39:15–41.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fabbri N (2009) Cosmologia e armonia in Kepler e Mersenne. Contrappunto a due voci sul tema dell’Harmonices Mundi. Olschki, Firenze.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field J (1979) Kepler’s rejection of solid celestial spheres. Vistas in Astronomy 23/3:207–211.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Field J (1988) Kepler’s geometrical cosmology. The Chicago University Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field J (2009) Kepler’s Harmony of the World. In Kremer R, Wlodarczyk J (eds). Johannes Kepler. From Tübingen to Zagan. Institute for the History of Science–The Polish Academy of Sciences–The Copernicus Centre for the Interdisciplinary Studies. Instytut Historii Nauki PAN, Warszawa, pp. 11–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaukroger S, Schuster J, Sutton J (2000) (eds) Descartes’ natural philosophy. Routledge, London and New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert G (1600) De magnete, magneticisque corporibus, et de magno magnete tellure Physiologia nova, plurimis et argumentis et experimentis demonstrata. Petrus Shout, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillispie CC, Pisano R (2014) Lazare and Sadi Carnot. A Scientific and Filial Relationship. 2nd edition. Springer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gingerich O (1975) Kepler’s place in astronomy. In Beer and Beer 1975, pp. 261–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gingerich O (2011) Kepler’s Trinitarian cosmology. Science and Theology 9/1:45–51.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Goldbeck E (1896) Keplers Lehre von der Gravitation. Olms, Hildesheim–New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granada MA (2009) Novelties in the Heavens between 1572 and 1604 and Kepler’s Unified View of Nature. Journal for the History of Astronomy 40/4:393–402.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Granada MA (2010) “A quo moventur planetae?”. Kepler et la question de l’agent du mouvement planétaire après la disparition des orbes solides. Galilaeana VII:111–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grössing H (2003) Astrologie bei Johannes Kepler, Georg von Feuerbach und Johannes Regiomontanus. In Pichler 2003, pp. 63–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grössing H (2005) Gedanken zu Keplers Astrologie. In Boockmann F, Di Liscia D, Kothmann H (eds). Miscellanea Kepleriana. Festschrift für Volker Bialas zum 65. Geburtstag. Rauner, Augsburg, pp. 175–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerlac H (1963) Some historical assumptions of the history of science. In Crombie 1963, pp. 797–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guidi Itokazu A (2006) A Força que Move os Planetas: Da Noção de Species Immateriata na Astronomia de Johannes Kepler. CHPC 3/16/2:211–231. Retrieved: http://www.cle.unicamp.br/cadernos/pdf/AnastasiaGuidiItokazu.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guidi Itokazu A (2007) Da Potência Motriz Solar Kepleriana como Emanação Imaterial. CHPC 3/17/2:303–324. Retrieved: http://www.cle.unicamp.br/cadernos/pdf/%288%29Anastasia%20Guidi.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haase R (1998) Johannes Keplers Weltharmonik. Der Mensch im Geflecht von Musik, Mathematik und Astronomie. Eugen Diederichs, München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinzmann G (2009) Some Coloured Remarks on the foundations of Mathematics in the 20th Century. In Rahman, Symons, Gabbay and van Bendegem 2009, pp. 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton G (1956) Johannes Kepler’s universe: its physics and metaphysics. The American Journal of Physics 24/5:340–351.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyer U (1979) Kepler’s celestial mechanics. Vistas in Astronomy 23/1:69–74.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ihmig KN (1990) Trägheit und Massebegriff bei Johannes Kepler. Philosophia Naturalis 27/2:156–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaballah HD (1999) La formation du concept de force dans la physique moderne. Vol. II. Contribution à une épistémologie historique. Alpha Edition, Tunis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jammer M (1957) Concept of Force: a Study in the Foundations of Dynamics. The Harvard University Press, Cambridge–Ma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jardine N (1984) The birth of history and philosophy of science: Kepler’s A Defense of Tycho against Ursus, with essays on its provenance and significance. The Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jardine N (2000) Koyré’s Kepler/Kepler’s Koyré. History of Science 38/4:363–376.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Juste D (2010) Musical Theory and Astrological Foundations. In Wuidar L (ed). Kepler: The Making of the New Aspects. Music and Esotericism. Brill, Leiden, pp. 177–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz VJ, Parshall KH (2014) Taming the unknown. History of algebra from antiquity to the early twentieth century. The Princeton University Press. Princeton–New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepler J ([1606] 1859) De stella nova in pede Serpentarii [Prague, Ex Officina calcographica Pauli Sessii]. Opera Omnia. Vol. II, Frankofurti et Erlangae [see also: KGW, I, pp. 147–292].

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepler J (1596) Prodromus dissertationum cosmographicarum seu mysterium cosmographicum. In KGW, I.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepler J (1609) Astronomia Nova AITIOΛOΓETOΣ seu phisica coelestis tradita de commentariis de motibus stellae Martis ex observationibus G. V. Tychonis Brahe. In KGW, III.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepler J (1618–1621) Epitome astronomiae copernicanae. In KGW, VII.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepler J (1621) Mysterium Cosmographycum (editio altera). In KGW, VIII.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepler J (1624) Chilias logarithmorum ad totidem numeros rotundus, praemissa demonstratione legitima ortus logarithmorum eorumque usus. In KGW, IX, pp. 275–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepler J (1625) Supplementum chiliadis logarithmorum, continens praecepta de eorum usu. In KGW, IX, pp. 353–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepler J (1981) Mysterium Cosmographicum (The Secret of the Universe). Abaris Book, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepler J (1992) New Astronomy. Translation of Astronomia Nova by William H. Donahue. The Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepler J (1993) Le Secret du monde. Gallimard, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepler J (2010) Kurze Darstellung der kopernikanischen Astronomie. Nachwort von Eberhard Knobloch. Deutsche, Übersetzung von Eberhard Knobloch und Otto und Eva Schönberger. Königshausen & Neumann. Würzburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • KGW Kepler J (1937–2012) Johannes Kepler, Gesammelte Werke. Van Dyck W, Caspar M. et al. (eds). Revised April 2013. 10 Vols. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft und Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knobloch E (1997) Die gesamte Philosophie ist eine Neuerung in alter Unkenntnis. Johannes Keplers Neuorientierung der Astronomie um 1600. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 20/2–3:135–146.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Knobloch E (2012) La rivoluzione scientifica. I protagonisti: Johannes Kepler. Enciclopedia Treccani. Istituto della Enciplopedia Italiana, Roma., Chapter XXVII.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koyré A (1934) Nicolas Copernic, Des révolutions des orbes céleste. Alcand, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koyré A (1957) From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koyré A (1961a) Du monde de « à–peu–près » à l’univers de la précision. M Leclerc et Cie–Armand Colin Librairie, Paris (Id., Les philosophes et la machine. Du monde de l’« à–peu–près » à l’univers de la précision. Études d’histoire de la pensée philosophique).

    Google Scholar 

  • Koyré A (1961b) Message d’Alexandre Koyré à l’occasion du centenaire de la naissance d’Émile Meyerson. Bulletin de la Société française de philosophie 53:115–s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koyré A (1961c) La révolution astronomique : Copernic, Kepler, Borelli. Hermann, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koyré A (1963) Scientific Change. In Crombie 1963, pp. 847–857.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koyré A (1966) Études galiléennes. Hermann, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koyré A (1971) Études d’Histoire de la pensée philosophique. Gallimard, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koyré A (1973) Études d’histoire de la pensée scientifique. Gallimard, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koyré A (1986) De la mystique à la science. Cours, conférences et documents 1922–1962. In Redondi P (ed). Cours, conférences et documents 1922–1962. EHESS Éditions, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koyré A (1965) Newtonian Studies. The Harvard University Press, Cambridge–MA.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Krafft F (1975) Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler: New Astronomy from old Astronomy. In Beer and Beer 1975, pp. 287–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krafft F (1991) The New Celestial Physics of Johannes Kepler. In Unguru 1991, pp. 185–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kragh H (1991) Cosmonumerology and empiricism. Astronomy Quarterly 8:109–126.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kragh H (2008) The Moon that Wasn’t. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The Chicago University Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg DC (1986) The Genesis of Kepler’s Theory of Light: Light Metaphysics from Plotinus to Kepler. Osiris 2nd ser.:25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malet A (1990) Gregoire, Descartes, Kepler and the law of refraction. Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences 40:278–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens R (2000) Kepler’s Philosophy and the New Astronomy. The Princeton University Press, Princeton–New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehl E (2011) (ed) Kepler. La Physique céleste. Autour de l’Astronomia Nova. Les Belles Lettres, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menschl E (2003) Die Faszination der Harmonie – Pythagoras und Kepler. In Pichler 2003, pp. 127–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittelstrass J (1972) Methodological Elements of Keplerian Astronomy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 3:203–232.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel E (1961) The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. Harcourt–Brace & World Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naylor RH (1976) Galileo: the Search for the Parabolic Trajectory. Annals of Science 33:153–172.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Newton I ([1713] 1729) The Mathematical principles of natural philosophy. Translated by Motte Andrew. Motte B, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton I ([1726; 1739–1742] 1822) Philosophiae Naturalis Mathematica Principia, auctore Isaaco Newtono, Eq. Aurato, perpetuis commentariis illustrata, communi studio Pp. Thomae Le Seur et Francisci Jacquier ex Gallicana minimorum familia, matheseos professorum. Editio nova (in three volumes). Duncan, Glasgow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton I (1687) Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Imprimatur S. Pepys, Reg. Soc. Preses. Julii 5. 1686. Londini, Jussi Societatus Regiae ac Typis Josephi Streater. Prostat apud plures Bibliopolas. Anno MDCLXXXVII.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petroni AM (1989) I modelli, l’invenzione e la conferma. Franco Angeli, Milano.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peuerbach G (1473) Theoricæ novæ planetarum, id est septem errantium siderum nec non octavi seu firmamenti. Nürnberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pichler F (2003) (ed) Der Harmoniegedanke Gestern und Heute. Peuerbach Symposium 2002. Trauner, Linz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R (2008) A history of chemistry à la Koyré? Introduction and setting of an epistemological problem. Khimiya 2/17:143–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R (2009) On method in Galileo Galilei’ mechanics. In Hunger H (ed). Proceedings of 3rd Congress of the European Society for the History of Science. The Austrian Academy of Science, Vienna, pp. 174–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R (2011) Physics–Mathematics Relationship. Historical and Epistemological notes. In Barbin E, Kronfellner M and Tzanakis C (eds), Proceedings of the ESU 6 European Summer University History And Epistemology in Mathematics. Verlag Holzhausen GmbH–Holzhausen Publishing Ltd., Vienna, pp. 457–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R (2013a) History Reflections on Physics Mathematics Relationship in Electromagnetic Theory. In Barbin and Pisano 2013, pp. 31–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R (2014) (ed) Isaac Newton and his Scientific Heritage: New Studies in the History and Historical Epistemology of Science. Special Issue. Advances in Historical Studies 3/3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R (2016a) What kind of Mathematics in Leonardo da Vinci and Luca Pacioli? Bulletin of the British Society for the History of Mathematics 31:104–111.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R (2016b) A Development of the Principle of Virtual Laws and its Framework in Lazare Carnot’s Mechanics as Manifest Relationship between Physics and Mathematics. Transversal: International Journal for Historiography of Science 2:166-203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R, Bussotti P (2017) (eds) Homage to Galileo Galilei 1564–2014. Reading Iuvenilia Galilean Works within History and Historical Epistemology of Science. Special Issue Philosophia Scientiae 21/1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R, Bussotti P (2012) Galileo and Kepler: On Theoremata Circa Centrum Gravitatis Solidorum and Mysterium Cosmographicum. History Research 2/2:110–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R, Bussotti P (2013) Notes on the Concept of Force in Kepler. In Pisano, Capecchi and Lukešová 2013, pp. 337–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R, Bussotti P (2014a) Galileo in Padua: architecture, fortifications, mathematics and “practical” science. Lettera Matematica Pristem International 2/4:209–221.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R, Bussotti P (2014b). Historical and Philosophical Reflections on the Culture of Machines around the Renaissance. How Science and Technique Work? Acta Baltica Historiae et Philosophiae Scientiarum 2/2:20–42.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R, Bussotti P (2015a) Historical and Philosophical Reflections on the Culture of Machines around the Renaissance: Machines, Machineries and Perpetual Motion. Acta Baltica Historiae et Philosophiae Scientiarum 3/1:69–87.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R, Bussotti P (2015b) Introduction to Exploring Changes in How the Histories of the Exact Sciences from the 18th to through the 20th Century Have Been Written: Interpreting the Dynamics of Change in these Sciences and Interrelations Amongst Them—Past Problems, Future Cures? Advances in Historical Studies Special Issue 4/2:65–67.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R, Bussotti P (2016) A Newtonian Tale Details on Notes and Proofs in Geneva Edition of Newton’s Principia. Bulletin–British Society for the History of Mathematics 32:1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R, Capecchi D (2013) Conceptual and Mathematical Structures of Mechanical Science in the Western Civilization around 18th Century. Almagest 4/2:86–121.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R, Capecchi D (2015) Tartaglia’s science weights. Mechanics in sixteenth century. Selection from Quesiti et invention diverse: Books VII–VIII. Dordrecht, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R, Capecchi D, Lukešová A (eds) (2013) Physics, Astronomy and Engineering. Critical Problems in the History of Science. International 32nd Congress for The SISFA–Italian Society of Historians of Physics and Astronomy. The Scientia Socialis UAB & Scientific Methodical Centre Scientia Educologica Press, Šiauliai University, Lithuania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R, Fichant M, Bussotti P, Oliveira ARE (2017) (eds.) The Dialogue between Sciences, Philosophy and Engineering. New Historical and Epistemological Insights. Homage to Gottfried W. Leibniz 1646–1716. The College Publications, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R, Gaudiello I (2009a) Continuity and discontinuity. An epistemological inquiry based on the use of categories in history of science. Organon 41:245–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano R, Gaudiello I (2009b) On categories and scientific approach in historical discourse. In Hunger H (ed) Proceedings of ESHS 3rd conference. The Austrian Academy of Science, Vienna, pp. 187–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulte H, Mandelbrote S (2011) (eds.) The Reception of Isaac Newton in Europe. Continuum–Publishing Corporation, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabin SJ (1997) Kepler’s Attitude toward Pico and the Anti-astrology Polemic. Renaissance Quarterly 50/3:750–770.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rabin SJ (2005) Was Kepler’s species immateriata substantial? Journal for the History of Astronomy 36:49–56.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Radelet–de Grave P (1996) Entries: Stevin, Kepler, Leibniz, Huygens. Dictionnaire du patrimoine littéraire européen, Patrimoine Littéraire Européen. Vol. 8, Avènement de l’Équilibre européen 1616–1720. De Boeck Supérieur Bruxelles, p. 18, pp. 745–755, pp. 1020–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radelet–de Grave P (2007) Kepler (1571–1630) et Cavalieri (1598–1647) astrologues, ou le logarithme au secours de l’astrologie. In Daelemans F, Elkhadem H (eds). Mélanges offerts à Hossam Elkadem par ses amis et ses élèves. Archives et Bibliothèques de Belgique, Bruxelles, pp. 297–315k.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radelet–de Grave P (2009) Guarini et la structure de l’Univers. Nexus Network Journal 11/3:393–414.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman S, Symons J, Gabbay DM, van Bendegem JP (2009) (eds) Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Springer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scaliger JC (1577) Julii Caesaris Scaligeri exotericarum exercitationum liber XV de Subtilitate, ad Hieronymum Cardanum. Claudium Marnium et haeredes Ioannis Aubrii, Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster JA (2000) Descartes opticien: the construction of the law of refraction and the manufacture of its physical rationales, 1618–1629. In Gaukroger, Schuster and Sutton 2000, pp. 258–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster JA (2013) Descartes–Agonistes. Physico–mathematics, Method and Corpuscular–Mechanism 1618–1633. Springer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwaetzer H (1997) “Si nulla esset in terra anima”. Johannes Keplers Seelenlehre als Grundlage seines Wissenschaftsverständnisses. Ein Beitrag zum vierten Buch der Harmonices Mundi. Studien und Materialien zur Geschichte der Philosophie 44. Hildesheim, Zürich–New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shank JB (2008) The Newton Wars and the Beginning of French Enlightenment. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Small R (1804) An account of the astronomical discoveries of Kepler. Mawman, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson B ([1987] 1994a) Kepler’s Physical Astronomy. The Princeton University Press, Princeton–New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson B (1994b) The Music of the Heavens. Kepler’s Harmonic Astronomy. The Princeton University Press, Princeton–New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tartaglia N (1537) La noua scientia de Nicolo Tartaglia: con una gionta al terzo libro, per Stephano Da Sabio, Venetia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tartaglia N (1554) La nuova edizione dell’opera Quesiti et inventioni diverse de Nicolo Tartaglia brisciano, Riproduzione in facsimile dell'edizione del 1554 (1959). Masotti A (ed). Commentari dell’Ateneo di Brescia, Tipografia La Nuova cartografica, Brescia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treder HJ (1975) Kepler and the Theory of Gravitation. In Beer and Beer 1975, pp. 617–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unguru S (1991) (ed) Physics, Cosmology and Astronomy, 1300–1700: Tension and Accommodation. The Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 126. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht–Boston–London, pp. 101–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voelkel JR (1999) Johannes Kepler and the New Astronomy. The Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voltmer U (1998) Rhythmische Astrologie. Johannes Keplers Prognose-Methode aus neuer Sicht. Urenia, Neuhausen am Rheinfall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westfall RS (1971) The Construction of Modern Science. Mechanism and Mechanic. Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westman R (2001) Kepler’s Early Physical-astrological Problematic. Journal for the History of Astronomy 32:227–236.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We want to express our warm gratitude to Daniel Di Liscia for his valuable comments, to English proofreaders and to anonymous referees for their good blind peer–reviewed job. Their comments were of great help. We also want to express our sincere thankfulness and appreciation to Peter Michael Schenkel (Kepler-Kommission) who on behalf of the Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften gave us permission to use images from the official and prestigious KGW edition.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lille University, Villeneuve d’Ascq, France

    Raffaele Pisano

  2. Archive Poincaré, Lorraine University, Nancy, France

    Raffaele Pisano

  3. Unit HPS, Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Raffaele Pisano

  4. Department of Human Studies, Udine University, Udine, Italy

    Paolo Bussotti

Authors
  1. Raffaele Pisano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paolo Bussotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raffaele Pisano .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Lille University, Villeneuve d’Ascq, France

    Prof. Dr. Raffaele Pisano

  2. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Prof. Joseph Agassi

  3. National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

    Dr. Daria Drozdova

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pisano, R., Bussotti, P. (2018). On the Conceptualization of Force in Johannes Kepler’s Corpus: An Interplay Between Physics/Mathematics and Metaphysics. In: Pisano, R., Agassi, J., Drozdova, D. (eds) Hypotheses and Perspectives in the History and Philosophy of Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61712-1_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61712-1_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61710-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61712-1

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)