Ephemeris
Ephemeris
Ephemeris
Contents
[hide]
1 History
2 Modern ephemeris
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
6 External links
History[edit]
A Latin translation of al-Khwrizm's zj, page from Corpus Christi College MS 283
Alfonsine tables
12th century AD the Tables of Toledo based largely on Arabic zj sources of Islamic
astronomy were edited by Gerard of Cremona to form the standard European
ephemeris until the Alfonsine Tables.
13th century the Zj-i lkhn (Ilkhanic Tables) were compiled at the Maragheh
observatory in Persia.
13th century the Alfonsine Tables were compiled in Spain to correct anomalies in the
Tables of Toledo, remaining the standard European ephemeris until the Prutenic Tables
almost 300 years later.
1408 Chinese ephemeris table (copy in Pepysian Library, Cambridge, UK (refer book
'1434'); Chinese tables believed known to Regiomontanus).
1496 the Almanach Perpetuum of Abrao ben Samuel Zacuto (one of the first books
published with a movable type and printing press in Portugal)
1551 the Prutenic Tables of Erasmus Reinhold were published, based on Copernicus's
theories.
1554 Johannes Stadius published Ephemerides novae et auctae, the first major
ephemeris computed according to Copernicus' heliocentric model, using parameters
derived from the Prutenic Tables. Although the Copernican model provided an elegant
solution to the problem of computing apparent planetary positions (it avoided the need
for the equant and better explained the apparent retrograde motion of planets), it still
relied on the use of epicycles, leading to some inaccuracies - for example, periodic errors
in the position of Mercury of up to ten degrees. One of the users of Stadius's tables is
Tycho Brahe.
1627 the Rudolphine Tables of Johannes Kepler based on elliptical planetary motion
became the new standard.
1975 Owen Gingerich, using modern planetary theory and digital computers,
calculates the actual positions of the planets in the 16th Century and graphs the errors in
the planetary positions predicted by the ephemerides of Stffler, Stadius and others.
According to Gingerich, the error patterns "are as distinctive as fingerprints and reflect
the characteristics of the underlying tables. That is, the error patterns for Stffler are
different from those of Stadius, but the error patterns of Stadius closely resemble those of
Maestlin, Magini, Origanus, and others who followed the Copernican parameters."[5]