Kepler and the Music of the Spheres

The idea that the proportions in the motion of heavenly bodies are in agreement with those of musical harmony, known as the Music of the Spheres, goes back as far as Pythagoras and remained a central theme of philosophical thinking for more than two millennia. From Pythagoras to Plato, Philolaus, Cicero, Ptolemy, Boethius, and Robert Fludd, just to name the most influential of them, each scholar used different metaphysical or aesthetic arguments to associate to each celestial body a pitch, according to the best musical theory of his time. On the contrary, Kepler proceeded on a firm logical and quantitative ground by means of his Third Planetary Law. Here it is explained how.
Voice: Elena Acinapura
Concept: Paolo Maraner

[@everstray9418]

This is phenomenal, deserves much more views

[@edinsonsanchez5591]

this is an amazing resource. Space faring movies and media should use this musical tones when traveling to these planets. The sounds do invoke the image of the corresponding planets in my mind. Specially Mercury and Jupiter.

[@mollysmastercleanllc7310]

This is beyond excellent. Thank you so very much. 🌹

[@WheatstrawMcGraw]

Thank You! Well Done!

[@udomatthiasdrums5322]

love it!!

[@VirtualMechanism]

Thank's is excelent the explication

[@juanamaria9615]

great info

[@LordChancletus]

With the formula at 2:07 and putting in the mass of the Earth of 5.972x10^24 kg with the radius of aphelion of 152.6x10^9 m and 147.5x10^9 m for perihelion respectively. Neither of both frecuencies give the values at 2:20 or 2:22 Can you bring in some context or maybe calculations for the results given?

[@LordChancletus]

Nevermind, I just found what it was, and I got some feedback. 1. The relationship between the variables at 1:30 is incorrect. Because Kepler's third law states that T^2 = k*r^3. So that solving for r^3/T^2 the numerator and denominator on the right hand side are backwards. 2. Also it seems that I didn't quite heard the part where it says SOLAR mass. My main mistake there 😅 it would be nice some notation like M_{sun} or something, but this is just me. 3. However, the notation described at 1:40 IS correct. Still though, depending on the sources used for the mass of the Sun and the distances of the aphelion and perihelion, it has a tiny numerical error. It was almost like if the Sun's mass was equal to 1.9x10^30, when the most astronomically recent value is nearer 1.989x10^30. Still though, amazing video ilustrates everything super well. Very clear!

[@ramig4478]

How Venus is C#6 and sings in Alto???

[@mysterym7008]

🥧 👍🏼