The Astronomical Clock Of Prague

I would like to add something to the famous Astronomical Clock that has been operating since 1410 in Old Town Square in Prague. It was built by a clock maker Mikula (or Mikulas) of Kadan. Most of it's components are still the originals.

It is known that Albert Einstein was inspired by a similar astronomical clock, the Zytglogge, to develop his Special Theory of Relativity when he was in Bern working as a patent clerk. Einstein realized that, if a streetcar moved away from the clock tower at the speed of light, to an observer on the streetcar the clock would seem to have stopped. That was the beginning of the Special Theory of Relativity.

Even though there is no documentation of it, I consider it as very probable that Johannes Kepler was inspired in a similar way to develop his Laws of Planetary Motion by the Astronomical Clock of Prague.

(Note- "Johannes" is pronounced as "Yo-Han" and is the German equivalent of "John").

Kepler apparently did not do much observing the sky himself, but worked with the astronomer Tycho Brahe. The telescope had not yet been invented but Brahe used specialized instruments, such as a large quadrant, to make very accurate measurements of the locations and movements of celestial objects. Kepler used these measurements to come up with his Laws of Planetary Motion. Kepler's work would be an influence on Sir Isaac Newton in developing his Laws of Motion, which would become the cornerstone of modern physics.

Tycho Brahe's observations, and Johannes Kepler's work with them, was done near Prague. Neither was Bohemian or Czech, Brahe was Danish and Kepler was German. But there was a freer atmosphere in Bohemia at the time that brought them there. The Copernican idea that the earth was not the center of the universe but revolved around the sun was gaining popularity and causing a lot of controversy. The Catholic Church opposed the new idea, but this time was after the Reformation but before the Catholics would mostly take Bohemia back.

Kepler must have seen the Astronomical Clock as he spent time in Prague. The clock at the time was nearly two hundred years old. I believe that the clock likely inspired the first two of Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, the third would come later, in much the same way that the Zytglogge astronomical clock in Bern would later inspire Einstein.

Kepler's first two Laws of Planetary Motion are as follows:

1) The orbit of a planet around the sun is in the form of an ellipse, with the sun at one of the two foci of the ellipse.

2) The planet naturally moves faster in it's orbit while closer to the sun, and slower when further away. A line from the planet to the sun will sweep over equal areas of space in equal periods of time.

Now, look at the celestial part of the Astronomical Clock of Prague.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_astronomical_clock#/media/File:Czech-2013-Prague-Astronomical_clock_face.jpg

Kepler's First Law of Planetary Motion is that the orbits are in the form of ellipses, not perfect circles. An ellipse is like a flattened circle and, in contrast to a circle, it has two focal points rather than one. In the orbit of a planet, the sun is always at one of these two focal points.

An ellipse can be described as two circles, of different sizes, merged together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse#/media/File:Ellipse-def0.svg

The major axis is the diameter of the larger circle and the minor axis is the diameter of the smaller circle. But look at the Astronomical Clock again, one circle inside the other and each with it's own focal point. Could this be what suggested the ellipse to Kepler, in the same way that a clock tower on a street suggested a streetcar moving away from the clock at the speed of light to Einstein?

As for Kepler's Second Law, image the two circles on the clock as two meshed gears and the clock, of course, operates on a gear system. If one of the gears were turned, which would cause the other one to also turn, the smaller one would rotate faster and the larger one slower but both would turn at the same angular velocity.

Doesn't it seem that this is what suggested to Kepler that a planetary orbit would operate on the same principles as gears? When the planet is further from the sun it moves slower in it's orbit and faster when it is closer, so that a line from the planet to the sun always sweeps over equal areas of space in equal periods of time, in the same way that the smaller gear with it's edge closer to it's center rotates faster than the larger gear, with it's edge further from it's center, even though both are turning at the same angular velocity?

COSMOLOGY

While on the subject of the orbits of planets being elliptical let me just point something out about my cosmology theory, the one detailed in the compound posting on this blog "The Theory Of Stationary Space".

It actually makes more sense that orbits should be circular, rather than elliptical. A circle is a lower information state than an ellipse. If an object, such as a meteor, is moving in a straight line and falls into the gravitational field of a planet, so that it goes into orbit around the planet, there shouldn't be enough information for the orbit to be an ellipse. It should be circular, and Galileo said that orbits should be circular.

But, as Kepler pointed out, the orbits of planets around the sun are indeed elliptical.

Here is what is happening, and it's really very simple. In my cosmology theory, velocity is actually an angle. Objects are bundles of strings, aligned in mostly the same direction in four-dimensional space. We perceive that direction as time and the other three as space, because our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings that comprise our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light.

We will perceive an object as moving at a velocity relative to us if it's bundle of strings is not aligned perfectly parallel to ours. If it is at a perpendicular angle to ours, we will perceive it as moving at the speed of light. We see the speed of light as the maximum possible speed because a right angle is the maximum possible angle.

If the meteor falls into orbit around the planet it will indeed go into an orbit that it circular. The meteor would be moving in a straight line at constant velocity so there would not be enough information for the orbit to be anything but circular.

But since it has velocity the meteor is actually at an angle to us and it would go into a circular orbit around the planet on the plane of that angle. When we look at the meteor's circular orbit we are actually looking at the orbit at an angle, although we are not aware of it.

When you look at a circle at an angle, it appears as an ellipse. Look at the edge of a cup or pot or bowl. You know that it is a circle, but it appears as a circle only if we look at it perpendicular to the plane of the circle. if we look at it from any other angle, the circle will look like an ellipse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse#/media/File:Ellipse-var.svg

ENERGY MUST BE CONSERVED

Have you ever wondered why there are orbits in the first place? If an object in orbit around the earth is attracted by the earth's gravity, which obviously it is, then why doesn't it just fall to the ground?

The way I figure it, the simplest explanation is that energy must always be conserved. We cannot just create energy out of nothing.

Suppose that a meteor is moving along in space and it falls into the earth's gravitational field. The meteor is moving at a certain velocity so it has energy of motion in accordance with that velocity.

If the meteor fell to the ground on earth, it would undergo the progressive acceleration of falling objects on earth. Near the earth's surface that acceleration is 32 feet (9.8 meters) per second squared.

When the meteor struck the earth's surface, it would make an impact and there would be energy in that impact. There was energy in the velocity of the meteor to begin with but unless the meteor was already going faster than it would be after it underwent the acceleration due to gravity as it fell to the earth's surface, that would be creating energy out of nothing.

Creating energy out of nothing is something that absolutely cannot be done. There is no energy at all in gravity, it is just a force. When we throw a ball up in the air there will be energy in the impact when it comes back down, but we are only getting the energy back that we put into the ball in the first place. There is no energy at all in gravity itself.

So, if the impact with the earth would release more energy than the meteor had to begin with the meteor will not fall to earth. Yet the meteor has now entered the earth's gravitational field. What will happen is a compromise. The meteor will remain in the earth's gravitational field, but will not fall to earth. The energy of velocity that the meteor already has will counteract the earth's gravity until a point is reached where the two are at equilibrium. At that point, which is an altitude above the earth, the meteor's energy of motion will act as centrifugal force to counteract the earth's gravity.

In other words, the meteor will go into orbit around the earth so that energy will be conserved.