# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Copernicus would have most likely appreciated Kepler's belief in the heliocentric system and the idea of the Sun causing motion of the planets. He might not have appreciated the idea that Kepler gave up on the perfect uniform circles of the orbiting planets, and replaced the idea with elliptical orbits. Copernicus believed his idea to be a symbol of divine harmony, meanwhile Kepler's shift to elliptical orbits was not thought up on beauty but more on mathematical precision. Keep in mind that Kepler was open to abandoning his ideas when the data did not fit. To elaborate, both men were guided by their own personal beliefs; Copernicus by his perfect circles, and Kepler by Platonic solids. It was these strong beliefs that helped them ask questions and make assumptions. Without these bold assumptions, there would have been a lesser chance of them being pushed far enough to make the discoveries that changed how we understand the solar system.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Copernicus would have most likely appreciated Kepler's belief in the heliocentric system and the idea of the Sun causing motion of the planets. He might not have appreciated the idea that Kepler gave up on the perfect uniform circles of the orbiting planets, and replaced the idea with elliptical orbits. Copernicus believed his idea to be a symbol of divine harmony, meanwhile Kepler's shift to elliptical orbits was not thought up on beauty but more on mathematical precision. Keep in mind that Kepler was open to abandoning his ideas when the data did not fit. To elaborate, both men were guided by their own personal beliefs; Copernicus by his perfect circles, and Kepler by Platonic solids. It was these strong beliefs that helped them ask questions and make assumptions. Without these bold assumptions, there would have been a lesser chance of them being pushed far enough to make the discoveries that changed how we understand the solar system.

# data[].attributes.headline
Copernicus vs Kepler – Module 3 Learning Activity

# data[].attributes.subject
Copernicus vs Kepler – Module 3 Learning Activity

# data[].attributes.body
With them both being brilliant men of science, I’d like to think they would eventually see eye to eye, but certainly not at first. With Copernicus being so sure of everything being equally circular, especially with the religious ideas of God having created everything perfectly, I think he would have been pretty offended that Kepler essentially took his theory apart and put it back together with a very different perspective. That being said, I do think Copernicus would eventually come to understand Kepler’s theory once learning how long Kepler spent tweaking each theory. Especially since Kepler wouldn’t have gotten where he did without Copernicus’ own theory to compare to.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that even though both Copernicus and Kepler had similar ideas revolving the universe and having a Heliocentric model. They would potentially be able to see eye to eye, but the difference in the way that they found their information would divide them. Through the idea of the Scientific Method and how their is a need for having observation and the need for data to help prove their points would change how they view their ideas.

# data[].attributes.body
I think one of the main differences between both astronomers (in comparison) and Copernicus is that Copernicus developed his scientific principles independently of religious influence- differing from Kepler.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that Copernicus would have appreciated Kepler's creative thinking since he notably did not have much of his own. Additionally, I think Copernicus would not have enjoyed the branching off of Aristotelian physics since Copernicus was a proud supporter of this branch of math. I bet they both would have bonded over how difficult it is to formulate a model of the earth's system given their limited perspective of the universe. I am sure they also would have bonded over how they both got critical parts of the functions of the universe wrong based on either fundamentally incorrect physics and religious beliefs.

# data[].attributes.headline
I doubt Copernicus would have been please with Kepler's results given how different they were from his own, but it would largely depend on how important being right was versus advancing the science. Same thing for Kepler had his hypothesis came first. However, neither would have likely arrived at their hypotheses without their own unique reasons for doing so, since their beliefs are what drove them to start from where they started from.  

# data[].attributes.subject
I doubt Copernicus would have been please with Kepler's results given how different they were from his own, but it would largely depend on how important being right was versus advancing the science. Same thing for Kepler had his hypothesis came first. However, neither would have likely arrived at their hypotheses without their own unique reasons for doing so, since their beliefs are what drove them to start from where they started from.  

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that science is based purely on preconceived notions of philosophers who studied planetary motions through tools available to them in their day. They did amazing work despite not having technology to accurately predict the movement of planets. In those days anyone could have fashioned a guess and published it as long as their calculations fit the model that was popular at the time. I would like to think that Copernicus would have agreed 100 percent with Kepler but I really think Copernicus thought Kepler was a bit extreme on the religious front but still a visionary. He really enjoyed listening to Kepler's guesses because they were both very mathematical people. Copernicus would have made Kepler's calculations fit the observations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Copernicus and Kepler: Desires of Beauty

# data[].attributes.subject
Copernicus and Kepler: Desires of Beauty

# data[].attributes.body
Copernicus and Kepler were both stuck on a desire that the orbits of the planets followed some beautiful pattern that they could easily explain. Copernicus forced a model together that kept with his ideal uniform circlular orbits; even if it meant employing unexplained movements along deferents and epicycles. Kepler desired that the orbits of the planets were placed by God and spaced out using beautiful geometry.

It appears Copernicus and Kelper were both so tunnel visioned towards their own preconceptions of the planetary movements that they did not want to look at other options.

However, I believe Copernicus was more stuck due to his lack of creativity. Kepler seemed to have a greater ability to imagine new ideas and continue seeking more natural-adjacent models of the planetary orbits.

I strongly believe Kepler would have had a greater likelihood of modelling the actual real planetary orbits if he continued his work - compared to Copernicus if he did the same.

I believe Copernicus would have loved the mathematics of Kepler's second and thirds laws, as well as the beauty of spacing the planets using nested platonic solids described in mysterium cosmographicum.

I believe Kepler would have loved if if the orbits of the planets could be explained with perfect circular shapes like Copernicus was modelling - but with a more explainable, natural way.

# data[].attributes.body
Copernicus would have found Kepler’s notion of elliptical orbit as opposed to perfect circular orbit quite annoying i believe—for religious reason as well being that God’s creation is beautiful, perfect and satisfactory. Although I’m rather convinced that Copernicus would have liked that Kepler maintained a heliocentric idea of the universe as opposed to one that was geocentric in nature.

I believe preconceived notions if harmless and within good reason are not only important but essential to scientific advancement. It is the natural desire to know of one is right about something that spurs them on to discover the objective truth about something. When wrong, making no effort to continue to discover the truth is biased and inhibitory to advancement. true knowledge is gained in the attempt and reconsideration of what is not yet known; or what was thought to be known. without this drive to know, neither Copernicus nor Kepler would have made the scientific ground that they had. In other words, not only was it beneficial, but necessary.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite their differences, both Copernicus and Kepler were driven by their preconceived notions and ideas in their quest for understanding celestial mechanics. It is noteworthy that the preconceptions of Copernicus and Kepler, such as the essential role of Platonic solids in Kepler's case, ultimately have no bearing on our current understanding of reality.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe Copernicus would be most intrigued by Keplar's third law since the law is based around the idea that the Sun has influence on planetary motion. This idea could have helped Copernicus build on his heliocentric model by applying more accurate physics with how the things move due to gravity. In total I dont believe Copernicus would have been completely happy with Keplars findings as the key points of their research actually conflict in many ways.

# data[].attributes.body
I think one of the main difference between these two astronomers would be that Kepler was much more innovative and imaginative than Copernicus. I think that Copernicus would have agreed with Keplers geo-heliocentric theory because although it differs from his heliocentric views it just alters the way in which we view the movement of the earth. I also think that Copernicus would not agree with Keplers religious background and how that may have altered his theory's.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not know Copernicus on a personal level so I am not quite sure what his initial thoughts would be in many ways they could be biased but in the name of Science and Astronomy I believe he would be thrilled with Kelpers findings, a better step to understanding the solar system.  Copernicus believed in the fact that the Earth and the other planets revolved around the Sun (heliocentric way). Kelper with his laws just confirmed Copernicus' work, especially the first law so I do not see why he would not have accepted this new knowledge.  Copernicus might have been against Kelpers 2nd law just because of his thoughts on the sizes of planets and stars in comparison. They are also just from different times where things were different, so it is possible they may have clashed.

# data[].attributes.body
Copernicus and Kepler both share an authentic passion for astronomy. Kepler's harsh reality of his life has driven him to pursue his passion and was a stickler for precision and Copernicus was not very creative or a revolutionary thinker how ever, he shares the same values as Kepler. Copernicus would of been pleased with Kepler's results of the creation of Kepler's Laws because as I mentioned earlier, Kepler liked precision. Copernicus passion has lead him to the Heliocentric Hypothesis and recognized that the Ptolemaic model bore the signs of a fundamentally flawed theory, utilizing the Frankenstein analogy. To me it does not matter if they where right or wrong. It was the hard work they have accomplished with such passion and determination. They have a gift of understanding the astronomical, mathematical language as they pursued it with pure intentions. Their discoveries of Circular Motions and Platonic solid has essentially helped be an influence of modern astronomy. Mistakes are what help shape the future to be better or do better.

# data[].attributes.body
Copernicus was certain with his findings. Because of this, I don’t think he would have been impressed with Kepler’s findings even though Kepler’s results are correct. In my opinion, Copernicus would have liked that Kepler continued to agree that the sun was at the center, but he wouldn’t have liked that Kepler changed Copernicus’ idea that planets orbits are circular, and instead they are elliptical. I feel that Copernicus would have also disagreed with Kepler because he had a religious view on the universe and based his findings on religion, unlike Copernicus. In the end, no matter how right or wrong any of the preconceived notions are, they have all taken part to gain more knowledge on our universe and we would not be where we are today without all of the discoveries of the past.