You really need to find out how RET got started.
You won't believe the extent to which Kepler had to fake/fudge the data in order to invent an inexistent elliptical orbit.
Kepler faked/fudged/falsified the entire set of data obtained from Brahe, and used the ellipse to calculate the final entries for his tables.
Kepler FAKED THE ENTIRE SET OF DATA, and announced to the world he got it from a nonexistent elliptical orbit.
The elliptical orbit WAS NOT based on observational astronomical data.
It was simply written in by Kepler.
As such, his book is a work of FICTION.
No science involved.
The observational input is nil.
Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.That is why Kepler's work is a total fraud.
Kepler used the elliptical hypothesis to calculate the tables.
That is not the same as computing the Mars-Sun distances from Brahe's observational data (directly from observations).
Moreover the longitudes in Kepler's tables were calculated with the aid of the area law of the ellipse AND NOT from direct observational values.
Since, according to his own words Kepler had no idea of the correct form of the orbital path, HOW COULD HE KNOW IN ADVANCE HOW TO CALCULATE THE TABLES WITH THE AID OF THE ELLIPTICAL HYPOTHESIS?
“Almost 400 years later, William H. Donohue undertook the task of translating
Kepler’s 1609 Astronomia Nova into the English New Astronomy (Donohue 1992)
when in the course of his work he redid many of Kepler’s calculations, he was
startled to find some fundamental inconsistencies with Kepler’s reporting of these
same calculations (Donohue 1988). Writing of Donohue’s pathbreaking work in
The New York Times, William Broad (1990) summarized Donahue’s findings
saying that although Kepler claimed to have confirmed the elliptical orbit by
independent observations and calculations of the position of Mars, in fact Kepler
derived the data from the theory instead of the other way around . . .
After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was
elliptical."
Kepler faked his entire set of data to match the ellipse.
The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.
''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary. A pivotal presentation of data to support the elliptical theory was ''a fraud, a complete fabrication,'' Dr. Donahue wrote in his paper. ''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''
''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.''
There is no such thing as an elliptical orbit.
DONAHUE'S CALCULATIONS ARE BASED UPON TYCHO BRAHE'S DATA.
KEPLER'S FAKE ENTRIES RELY ON THE ELLIPSE.
How in the world could Kepler know in advance which geometrical path to use?
Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.
The only thing Kepler knew in advance was the fact that the circles with epicycles WERE EQUIVALENT TO THE ELLIPSE, and all he had to do is FAKE THE ENTRIES.
He faked all of the entries.
KEPLER MODIFIED THE ENTRIES IN THE FINAL TABLE FOR CHAPTER 53: HE SIMPLY ADJUSTED THEM TO FIT THE ELLIPTICAL HYPOTHESIS WITH NO OBSERVATIONAL INPUT WHATSOEVER.
For the longitudes, Kepler claimed to have used the vicarious hypothesis: yet, the calculations show he used the area law for the ellipse.
http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988JHA....19..217D&db_key=AST&page_ind=12&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YEShttp://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988JHA....19..217D&db_key=AST&page_ind=16&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YESThe only sheer work involved was that of faking and replacing the correct entries by fudged entries.
Kepler simply replaced everything with data which suited his purpose.
There was no observational input at all.
None whatsoever.
Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.
That is why Kepler's work is a total fraud.