Johannes Kepler

Record year1609—1619

summaryFrom observational constraints and model comparison, Kepler proposed elliptical orbits, equal areas in equal times, and the relation between periods and orbital scale, giving planetary motion a set of quantitative laws.

M rationaleThe three laws formed a predictive, testable foundation for planetary motion and entered celestial mechanics across generations; the magnitude assessment does not include successors' gravitational explanation or all spaceflight applications.

attribution rationaleCredit for the focal person: Johannes Kepler (55.00%): he carried out model comparison, derived three interrelated quantitative laws from observational constraints, and published them in two stages; the share assesses authorial actions and is not inferred from fame or M. Full attribution budget: Johannes Kepler (55.00%): he carried out model comparison, derived three interrelated quantitative laws from observational constraints, and published them in two stages; the share assesses authorial actions and is not inferred from fame or M; Tycho Brahe (22.00%): high-precision observations of Mars and the Sun were necessary data inputs for deriving the first two laws, and there is clear evidence of his personal observational and organizational role; Tycho's observation team (5.00%): retains long-term observation, recording, and calculation labor in Tycho's observation program that has not been resolved person by person; Nicolaus Copernicus (6.00%): the Copernican heliocentric planetary system supplied a clear model premise; this is only prior-work credit and does not incorporate Kepler's laws into Copernicus's achievements; contributors to geometrical astronomy and Gilbert's prior work (4.00%): retains inherited geometrical astronomy and Gilbert's physical inspiration; these do not amount to completing the three laws and are not deducted again in M; editing, printing, and dissemination institutions (3.00%): editing, printing, and circulation of the two works made the laws public and testable knowledge, with a bounded delivery role; unresolved research inputs (5.00%): retains unresolved calculation assistance, transfer of materials, and prior-work contributions, avoiding strong attribution of the unknown to the author or named predecessors.

overlap boundaryThe three laws are combined as one item and do not include Newton's gravitational explanation or all later space-engineering achievements; this item uses the same achievement identity and attribution budget as the Kepler page.

Evidence gapsThe three laws differed in timing and form of acceptance; the early reception history has not yet completed checking of all primary records.

Record year1604

summaryKepler studied vision through geometrical rays and the camera obscura principle, explaining imaging within the eye and the retinal image.

M rationaleThis framework of vision and imaging entered later optical treatises, demonstrating the continuing influence of a professional method; it does not incorporate all modern ophthalmology or theories of vision.

attribution rationaleCredit for the focal person: Johannes Kepler (60.00%): he synthesized, geometrized, and publicly articulated the visual-optics model, which became a conceptual input to later optical treatises. Full attribution budget: Johannes Kepler (60.00%): he synthesized, geometrized, and publicly articulated the visual-optics model, which became a conceptual input to later optical treatises; prior work in perspective optics and camera obscura (18.00%): existing perspective optics and camera-obscura mechanisms were necessary knowledge prior work and are not repeatedly discounted in M; contributors of anatomical knowledge of the eye (8.00%): knowledge of eye anatomy entered the visual explanation, but current material is insufficient to resolve individuals; treatise editing, printing, and dissemination institutions (5.00%): production and dissemination of public treatises brought the model into optical discussion after the 1620s; unresolved knowledge and assistance inputs (9.00%): retains unverified original propositions, knowledge transfer, and possible assistants.

overlap boundaryVisual imaging and telescope configuration are handled separately and are not added as items by number of eye structures or propositions.

Evidence gapsThe original retinal proposition has not yet been independently collated; the current basis is scholarly text, without verification of clinical adoption or therapeutic effects.

Record year1611

summaryDioptrice proposed a combination of a convex objective lens and a convex eyepiece, analyzing the trade-offs among a wider field of view, inverted images, aberration, and other factors.

M rationaleThis design route later entered astronomical-telescope practice and became an important instrumental method; proposing the design is credited separately from later manufacture and improvement.

attribution rationaleAttribution to this person: Johannes Kepler (55.00%): proposed and publicly delivered the configuration with a convex objective and a convex eyepiece and theoretical analysis, specifying its trade-offs among field of view, image inversion, and aberration; this attribution does not claim that he built the instrument himself, and later implementation is evidence of reception used only to assess M. Full attribution budget: Johannes Kepler (55.00%): proposed and publicly delivered the configuration with a convex objective and a convex eyepiece and theoretical analysis, specifying its trade-offs among field of view, image inversion, and aberration; this attribution does not claim that he built the instrument himself, and later implementation is evidence of reception used only to assess M; Prior Dutch and Galilean telescope work (18.00%): existing Dutch and Galilean telescope practice supplied the problem, components, and comparative baseline; Lens craftspeople and workshops (8.00%): lenscraft and workshop capability were material prerequisites for moving from a theoretical configuration to a usable device; First-edition printing and technical-dissemination institutions (5.00%): editing, printing, and circulation of the first edition of Dioptrice publicly delivered the 1611 design knowledge; later editions and retellings are evidence only of acceptance; Unresolved design knowledge and editorial inputs (14.00%): retains unnamed inputs of knowledge, components, and editing in the formation of the 1611 design knowledge; later adopters are not mixed into the original-design attribution budget.

overlap boundaryCount only the 1611 configuration and analysis; do not include later terrestrial telescopes or all refracting-telescope improvements.

Evidence gapsThe design had not yet been built at the time, and lens quality constrained implementation; the specific original pages and passages for some later designs still require checking.

Record year1627—1629

summaryKepler integrated Tycho's observational data, laws of planetary motion, and computational methods into astronomical tables, providing calculations of the positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets and predicting the 1631 transit of Mercury.

M rationaleThe tables made the new astronomy usable for specialized calculation and supplied a specific prediction-and-observation path for the transit of Mercury; one verification does not justify claiming that all table entries and predictions were accurate.

attribution rationaleAttribution to this person: Johannes Kepler (42.00%): integrated observational data, planetary laws, and computational methods into usable tables, and demonstrated their operational capability through the 1629 prediction. Full attribution budget: Johannes Kepler (42.00%): integrated observational data, planetary laws, and computational methods into usable tables, and demonstrated their operational capability through the 1629 prediction; Tycho Brahe (25.00%): supplied the core observational data and thousand-star catalogue, the tables' substantive data foundation; Tycho's observation and star-catalogue team (8.00%): retains labor not yet resolved person by person in long-term observation, recording, compilation of star catalogues, and computational support; Existing logarithmic and tabulation methods (5.00%): Napier's logarithms and existing tabular calculation were implementation inputs; the general methodological value of logarithmic methods is not scored again in this entry; Tycho's heirs and Imperial supporting institutions (7.00%): custody of materials, authorization, and funding affected whether the tables could be completed and made public; existing evidence is insufficient for further personal allocation; Typesetting, proofreading, and production participants (5.00%): typesetting, proofreading, and material production of complex tables were direct delivery stages needed to make the computational service usable; Unresolved computational and source-material inputs (8.00%): retains unresolved portions concerning sources, computational checking, inheritance assistance, and the specific user chain.

overlap boundaryAstronomical tables, ephemerides, and transit predictions are combined and not scored repeatedly by table entry or number of celestial events.

Evidence gapsThe original instructions for use and the complete user history have not been checked; that year's transit of Venus was not observed in Paris.

Record year1615—1616

summaryKepler used ideas such as thin cross-sections to treat the volumes of solids bounded by curved surfaces, connecting a general geometrical method with cask-volume measurement and the use of measuring instruments.

M rationaleThe scholarly text and the original book's structure support a specialized measurement method that can be discussed independently; unproven commercial adoption is not treated as realized benefit.

attribution rationaleAttribution to this person: Johannes Kepler (65.00%): organized general solids bounded by curved surfaces, specialized cask measurement, and practical application into one publicly available computational method. Full attribution budget: Johannes Kepler (65.00%): organized general solids bounded by curved surfaces, specialized cask measurement, and practical application into one publicly available computational method; Prior Archimedean work on volume geometry (15.00%): Archimedean knowledge of volume was explicit prior methodological work in the book and is not deducted again in M; Cask-gauging practice and measuring-instrument practitioners (8.00%): cask-measurement practice and measuring-instrument problems provided practical objects and craft constraints, not currently allocated to individuals; Printing and technical-publishing institutions (4.00%): production and public delivery of the original book made the method retrievable specialized knowledge; Unresolved method and assistance inputs (8.00%): retains unresolved portions concerning specific formulas, worked examples, contemporary cask-measurement relations, and assistants.

overlap boundaryThe general method, cask application, and the 1616 revision are combined rather than accumulated by formula or cask type; later calculus is counted separately.

Evidence gapsThe original formulas, theorems, and numerical worked examples have not been directly checked; actual use by cask gaugers or merchants still requires supplementation.

Record year1611

summaryKepler compared arrangements and contact patterns of spheres and proposed the densest-packing claim now called the Kepler conjecture.

M rationaleThis proposition became a discrete-geometric problem subjected to continuing tests across centuries; the later proof demonstrates the proposition's value, while the proof achievement belongs to later researchers.

attribution rationaleAttribution to this person: Johannes Kepler (65.00%): publicly proposed a clear densest-packing proposition that could later be rigorously tested and compared specific contact configurations; this attribution does not claim that he completed the modern proof. Full attribution budget: Johannes Kepler (65.00%): publicly proposed a clear densest-packing proposition that could later be rigorously tested and compared specific contact configurations; this attribution does not claim that he completed the modern proof; Prior work in classical geometry and packing practice (15.00%): inherited geometry and practical packing experience supplied the problem background and configurational intuition; the specific lineage is not fully resolved; Material observers and knowledge communicators (8.00%): material observations such as snowflakes and arrangements of fruit or spheres, and transmission of knowledge, have not been allocated to individuals and retain limited roles; Printing-dissemination institutions (4.00%): printing and circulation of the 1611 text made the proposition a public mathematical object subject to sustained testing; Unresolved problem origins and assistance (8.00%): retains the unresolved residual ledger for the original argument's scope, the problem's origins, and assistants.

overlap boundaryCount only the conjecture and related comparisons of arrangements; do not include the later proof, formal verification, or all engineering applications.

Evidence gapsThe version source of the original digital transcription is unknown and has not been collated with a scan; the 1611 discussion does not constitute a modern rigorous proof.

Record year1618—1621

summaryKepler explained Copernican astronomy and the laws of planetary motion in a textbook-like structure, making the relevant knowledge into systematic reading material.

M rationaleReception-history research describes the book's wide reading from about 1630 to 1650, supporting its specialized teaching and dissemination value; it does not count the scientific discoveries themselves again.

attribution rationaleAttribution to this person: Johannes Kepler (65.00%): undertook systematic writing, explanation, and textbook-like organization, making the relevant knowledge an independent dissemination route rather than rediscovering the laws. Full attribution budget: Johannes Kepler (65.00%): undertook systematic writing, explanation, and textbook-like organization, making the relevant knowledge an independent dissemination route rather than rediscovering the laws; Copernican system and knowledge of planetary laws (15.00%): the Copernican system and the three laws of planetary motion are content inputs to the textbook; prior work underlying the content is retained without reallocating the scientific-discovery results; Editorial, printing, and edition-dissemination institutions (8.00%): multivolume publication, reprinting, and circulation were necessary delivery stages for the outcome of teaching dissemination; Early readers, teachers, and retellers (5.00%): wide reading around 1630 to 1650 had to be actually realized by readers, teachers, and retellers, who are not currently named and allocated; Unresolved dissemination inputs (7.00%): retains unresolved residual ledger for specific readers, teaching settings, editorial additions, and dissemination mechanisms.

overlap boundaryCount systematic writing and actual dissemination separately from attribution for the discoveries of the heliocentric system and the three laws.

Evidence gapsThe current reception history rests on a paper abstract; named readers, schools, and edition records have not been checked.

Record year1619

summaryThe Harmony of the World studies relations among the joining of plane and solid figures and presents two regular star polyhedra.

M rationaleThese contents form a line of geometrical research that can be retained independently of sphere packing, and later research on polyhedra continued it.

attribution rationaleThis person's attribution: Johannes Kepler (60.00%): took responsibility for the systematic organization of figure relations and the public presentation of the construction of two star polyhedra; the relevant figures are treated as research in the same group. Complete attribution budget: Johannes Kepler (60.00%): took responsibility for the systematic organization of figure relations and the public presentation of the construction of two star polyhedra; the relevant figures are treated as research in the same group; Euclidean and Archimedean geometrical prior work (20.00%): regular figures, Archimedean solids, and classical geometry are explicit prior work and must be retained in the attribution budget; cartography and geometrical-production supporters (5.00%): complex plates, cartography, and technical production had a direct delivery role, but the personnel have not yet been resolved; printing and dissemination institutions (5.00%): publication and circulation made the systematic geometrical contents objects readable by subsequent research; unresolved construction sources and assistance (10.00%): residual credit is retained for unread propositions of Book II, construction sources, and specific assistance.

overlap boundaryJoining, tessellations, and the related two solids are combined as one item, rather than accumulated by number of figures.

Evidence gapsThe specific propositions, plates, and constructions of Book II have not yet been directly read; all four later Kepler–Poinsot polyhedra must not be attributed to Kepler.

Record year1604—1606

summaryKepler recorded changes in the new star, collected other European observational materials, and published them, leaving a historical astronomical record that later generations could reanalyze.

M rationaleThese materials were reused in modern supernova light-curve research, demonstrating the continuing value of professional observational records; modern reconstruction results receive separate attribution.

attribution rationaleThis person's attribution: Johannes Kepler (55.00%): took responsibility for his own observations, data collection, interpretive boundaries, and public publication, making the record reusable astronomical material. Complete attribution budget: Johannes Kepler (55.00%): took responsibility for his own observations, data collection, interpretive boundaries, and public publication, making the record reusable astronomical material; other European observers and data providers (20.00%): modern reconstruction shows that Kepler's materials were connected to other European observations; their record inputs cannot all be attributed to the compiler; record correspondence and computational supporters (8.00%): retains unnamed labor in transcription, correspondence, time/location recording, and computational support; editing, printing, and archival-dissemination institutions (5.00%): printing, preservation, and later accessibility made historical observations available for renewed analysis; unresolved record sources (12.00%): retains residual credit for the attribution of individual records, unread original observations, and sources of error.

overlap boundaryDo not count a first discovery, and do not fold Korean independent observations or modern light-curve reconstruction into Kepler's original contribution.

Evidence gapsKepler did not begin observing until 10/17, and the records contain errors; the attribution and sources of individual original records still require checking.

Record year1624

summaryIn Chilias, Kepler organized a theoretical treatment of logarithmic principles, numerical tables, and instructions for use, for arithmetic and trigonometric calculation.

M rationaleThis methodological knowledge can be used separately from astronomical star tables; assess its explanatory and computational value without attributing the invention of logarithms to Kepler.

attribution rationaleThis person's attribution: Johannes Kepler (50.00%): took responsibility for theoretical restatement in a Euclidean proportional framework, organization of proofs, numerical tables, and public delivery of a user guide. Complete attribution budget: Johannes Kepler (50.00%): took responsibility for theoretical restatement in a Euclidean proportional framework, organization of proofs, numerical tables, and public delivery of a user guide; John Napier (30.00%): the original book title explicitly acknowledges that Napier first invented logarithms; this item assesses only Kepler's verification, explanation, and tables and does not include attribution for the invention of logarithms; Euclidean tradition of proportional theory (8.00%): Euclidean proportional theory is an explicit methodological foundation for the expression of the proofs; numerical-table typesetting and publishing institutions (4.00%): numerical-table typesetting and publication made the method available for calculation and played a limited delivery role; unresolved tabulation and verification inputs (8.00%): retains residual credit for numerical-table preparation, transcription, verification, and unresolved sources; do not treat independent earlier routes as evidenced direct inputs.

overlap boundaryDistinguish the general logarithmic method from its specific service to astronomical tables; if subsequent evidence shows that they cannot be independent, accounting should be recombined.

Evidence gapsThe original proof pages and the precision of the numerical tables have not yet been directly read; named uses and teaching records outside the star tables still require supplementation.

Record yearPublished in 1634

summaryThe Dream combines the perspective of an observer on the Moon with a travel narrative and astronomical annotations, and was published by Ludwig Kepler after the author's death.

M rationaleThe work forms a cultural and scientific narrative object that can be read independently; do not use the label ‘science-fiction pioneer’ to expand it to the entire science-fiction tradition.

attribution rationaleThis person's attribution: Johannes Kepler (70.00%): took responsibility for the principal creation of the work's narrative, lunar perspective, and scientific annotations; count only the work itself and do not claim the entire science-fiction tradition. Complete attribution budget: Johannes Kepler (70.00%): took responsibility for the principal creation of the work's narrative, lunar perspective, and scientific annotations; count only the work itself and do not claim the entire science-fiction tradition; Ludwig Kepler (15.00%): posthumous publication in 1634 actually delivered the work to readers; this is a publication-realization role and does not rewrite authorship of the original work; classical lunar-travel and astronomical prior work (7.00%): classical lunar-travel narratives and existing astronomy provided genre and knowledge prior work; posthumous printing and dissemination institutions (3.00%): printing and circulation played a limited delivery role in making the work a public cultural object; unresolved editorial inputs (5.00%): retains residual credit for specific assistance in posthumous editing and dissemination.

overlap boundaryThe narrative and scientific annotations are combined as a complete work, and are not double-counted with lunar science or all spaceflight culture.

Evidence gapsThe original full text and specific relationships of later borrowing have not yet been read; the current basis is researchers' interpretations and excerpts.

Record year1620—1621

summaryKepler visited his mother, prepared a point-by-point defense, and offered natural explanations in terms of illness for the phenomena in the accusations. Katharina was ultimately freed from the witchcraft accusation and detention.

M rationaleRelease from the accusation and detention changed the liberty circumstances of one specific person; Kepler's role and those of his mother herself, legal procedures, and other assistance receive separate attribution.

attribution rationaleThis person's attribution: Johannes Kepler (35.00%): carried out visits, prepared a point-by-point defense, and offered natural explanations in terms of illness, with a direct mechanism connection to release from accusation and detention. Complete attribution budget: Johannes Kepler (35.00%): carried out visits, prepared a point-by-point defense, and offered natural explanations in terms of illness, with a direct mechanism connection to release from accusation and detention; Katharina Kepler (25.00%): her own defense, perseverance, and participation in the case must be retained as a co-producing role in the outcome; the assisted person must not be rendered a passive zero share; legal scholars and defense supporters (15.00%): legal opinions, procedural knowledge, and other assistance participated in the release outcome, but existing materials have not resolved them person by person; courts and legal procedure (10.00%): judgment and procedure were necessary institutional actions for the lifting of the accusation; retaining this role does not affirm the entire persecutory system; family and local supporters (5.00%): family and local support may have participated in visits, materials, and subsistence maintenance, and are currently only an unnamed role pool; unresolved case inputs (10.00%): retains residual credit for unread original case files, other legal actions, and unresolved release causality.

overlap boundaryCount only the release outcome in this case; do not expand it into an end to witch hunts, and do not offset unknown harms from other activities.

Evidence gapsThe original case files have not yet been independently read; it cannot be determined that Kepler alone was sufficient to bring about release, nor can release be described as long-term recovery of health.

Record year1613–1620s

summaryKepler took up and discussed Susliga's chronological judgment, offering arguments and responses concerning the year of Christ's birth.

M rationaleThe existing scholarly discussion supports a chronological-research text with specific content; it is not determined to have resolved the birth year or caused calendar reform.

attribution rationaleThis person's attribution: Johannes Kepler (50.00%): took responsibility for argument on the chronological question, responses, and organization of the public text; count only bounded scholarly content and do not claim calendar reform. Complete attribution budget: Johannes Kepler (50.00%): took responsibility for argument on the chronological question, responses, and organization of the public text; count only bounded scholarly content and do not claim calendar reform; Laurentius Susliga (30.00%): existing scholarly text explicitly states that Kepler took up and discussed Susliga's conclusion of 5 BC, so predecessor credit must be substantially retained; scriptural and chronological traditions (8.00%): existing scripture, chronological materials, and scholarly debate constitute inputs to the argument and are not currently further divided; printing and scholarly-dissemination institutions (4.00%): public release and scholarly circulation of the text played a limited delivery role; unresolved sources of arguments and assistance (8.00%): retains residual credit for specific sources of arguments, editorial assistance, and unresolved actual reading effects.

overlap boundaryThe related arguments and responses are combined rather than added by textual version, and are not extended into a general achievement in theology.

Evidence gapsKey argument pages in the original edition and an independent reception history have not yet been read; continued adoption or institutional impact is unknown.