Talk:Harmonices Mundi

External link to "Kepler's discovery" website

John Nevard, please have a look at WP:LINKSTOAVOID, policy on external links. It says to avoid "unverifiable research," which applies to the case of the anonymous website "Kepler's discovery," and also says to avoid links to "personal web pages," which may also apply to "Kepler's discovery." The LYM site which you removed[1] is not anonymous, and was in fact plagiarized in parody form by the "Kepler's discovery" website. --Polly Hedra (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing there applies to the better website that doesn't to the LaRouche website. The better website isn't written in the same kind of bizarre pseudointellectual style that characterizes LaRouche material, and it isn't designed as part of a LaRouche organization recruiting tool, as the current LaRouche focus on Kepler's philosophy apparently is. Despite a typically long LaRouchian diatribe, I can't see any accusations of actual plagiarism in the article you've previously cited as evidence. Just because you think LaRouche, And His, Annointed Ones, are the only barrier, in the way of, the Dark Ages, doesn't mean that anyone who provides a concise explanation of a historical piece of geometry is plagiarising the troof. John Nevard (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should your personal preferences carry more weight than Wikipedia's rules? BTW for anyone who is actually interested, the documentation on the plagiarism charges re: "Kepler's discovery" is found here. --Polly Hedra (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That daft article is a particularly good example of a link to avoid. Anyone who isn't trying to use policy in an obstructionist way would realize that the proper, concise, and bizarre and LaRouchian websites the article originally pointed to don't have anything to do with the policies you claimed to draw upon. John Nevard (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't make any sense. Also,the rules are as they are for good reason. --Polly Hedra (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No rule requires adding external links, except to official websites and that's not relevant here. Since these links are a source of contention, I suggest that we either add both or remove both. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me: I went ahead and did it. Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing

Expanding and editing for college project. Newallis (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Link

Kepler linked five elements with five polyhedra. This should be in the article. See http://www.georgehart.com/virtual-polyhedra/kepler.html . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C86:9000:CC9D:731C:A81F:CFC3 (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

He also linked the planets to them as well. The link given above doesn't actually spell it out (though you can sort of decode it from the image): the ratio of the aphelion of one planet to the perihelion of the next was believed to be equal to the ratio of the insphere and circumsphere of a platonic solid. It goes Mercury - octahedron - Venus - icosahedron - Earth - dodecahedron - Mars - tetrahedron - Jupiter - cube - Saturn. This belief also explained why there are exactly six planets. --2607:FEA8:86DC:B0C0:48B4:7C47:6B15:3F5B (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Detail

See https://hermetic.com/godwin/kepler-and-kircher-on-the-harmony-of-the-spheres . This gives more detail about Kepler's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C86:9000:CC9D:731C:A81F:CFC3 (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"Kepler's" Reasoning

To Whom This May Concern,

Maybe if someone would check the source because I'm unable? I'm confused about how Kepler, writing in Latin would have successfully reproduced this play-on-words in a subsequent English translation.

Quote of Kepler in the article, attributed to Rennaissance Studies Journal:

The Earth sings Mi, Fa, Mi: you may infer even from the syllables that in this our home misery and famine hold sway. Impulong (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Miseria and fames (misery and famine). I have the English translation of the complete work, and theirs is very close to the Renaissance Studies Journal translation. Antandrus (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for your help! Impulong (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)