Copernicus was the first scientist to prove a scientific basis for ‘heliocentric cosmology’ or the theory that the sun is in the center of the universe, with the rest of the planets rotating around it. He developed this theory after years of research, and he formulated (with a combination of mathematics, geometry and logic) that Earth, as well as the rest of the other planets in the universe rotate around the sun, with the earth being able to do so in 365 days (1 year) Furthermore, the Earth also rotated itself on its axis for 24 hours a day, and is the reason why day and night occur, as well as the seasons we experience. This was a great discovery by Copernicus, as it challenged conventional ideas which has previously stated that the sun rotated around the Earth. There were even extremely radical Catholic ideas, suggesting that it was in fact God, that caused day and night, and the Earth’s weather patterns. Though Copernicuses theory was not accepted straight away, it eventually became accepted. However, it had not really become fully used intil around the 17th-18tth century. This causes many to question whether Coepernicus can truly be defined as a revolutionary. A revolutionary idea is one that changes the course of the subject in which the discovery was found in, and is acceptable to everyone. This was not the case, and in some areas, people saw Coepernicus as ‘the devil’ . Because it wasn’t widespreadly accepted, and took centuries before it was ever fully applied, some can argue that Copernicus was merely just another scientist with a hypothesis. Also, it can be argued that Coepernicus was not the first to have developed this theory of Heliocentricity. In ancient India, , an Indian theologist, believed the Earth was spherical and that the sun was the center of all the spheres. He based this theory around observations he made as well as influences from the ‘Baghvad Ghita’ , one of the ancient Sanskrit holy books of the Brahmin religion. Therefore it can be argued that Coepernicus’ theory was not unique, and that this ‘luck’ should in no way define him as being a revolutionary.
Similarly, there are disputes upon whether or not Kepler can be seen as a revolutionary. While some argue that his theory was a significant scientific development upon which most planetary discoveries have been established, he can again only be seen as a scientist, as he more or less based his discoveries around Copernicuses heliocentricity theory, and the studies of Tycho Brahe. Kepler examined planetary positions in the solar system under the assumption that they rotated in perfect circles, in correllation to Coepernicus’ theory. He noticed a discrepency of 8 minutes between the rotation of Mars and its consequential position, showing that Copernicus’ theory of ‘Perfect Circles’ was wrong. In fact, it made more sense to say that the planets had more elliptical orbits. He also developed a second theory, that planets sped up when they got closer to the sun. His final observation from that point, was that the speed and time taken of a planet to orbit the sun was dependant on its size and mass. These eventually formed the planetary laws of motion. Kepler’s theory can be looked at from two levels. The first level, is that Kepler had developed planteary laws of motion, which were important in order to develop new ideas and theorys about the planet and the universe. Without these, we would not have been able to develop the discoveries (such as the idea of gravitational pull of the moon) that are so detrimental to society. Therefore, this concept will suggest that Kepler was a revolutionary as he built one of the main stepping stones of planetary science. However, Kepler’s ideas were primarily based on the works of other scientists. His theory assumed the heliocentricity model of Copernicus and the observations of his once-teacher, Tycho Brahe. In this sense, he can really only be seen as a scientist, as his idea was developed upon the findings of other scientists. Furthermore, Kepler never mathematically proved his theory in the intricate detail that Coepernicus did. Therefore, many argue that he was in no way as revolutionary as Coepernicus, if revolutionary at all.
Defining which of the two scientists was the most revolutionary is quite challenging, in the sense that different people will have quite different interpretations of this. Some may believe that Copernicus was the most revolutionary, as he after all, defined the heliocentric solar system we know today, and was able to be a prime basis for most planetary dscoveries even to this day. However, others may say that Kepler was far more revolutionary as his dscovery somewhat disproved Copernicus’s and is the basis for Newtons gravity theory. Others may believe that neither are revolutionary; after all both scientists developed their ideas of previous theories. None of them were unique, so niether can be declared a full-out revolution. Personally, I believe that Kepler was more revolutionary. While Copernicus did develop a heliocentric system, and proved it with mathematical evidence, His theory was not unique. As mentioned earlier, the heliocentric theory had been established by many civilizations thousands of years before Copernicus. The ancient Indian’s theory proved to be extremely similar to Copernicus’s, so therefore, Copernicus was really only able to scientifically show it was feasible. Even to this day, no scientist can truly test whether or not the the heliocentric theory is actually true. Kepler on the other hand, was able to develop on the heliocentric theory. Kepler showed that the planets did not operate as perfectly as everyone so had imagined, and that there were outside factors that would effect planetary rotations. This proved to be a stepping stone for further research for scientists, and has led to a great number of breakthroughs since. Therefore, Kepler’s theory definitely can be seen as one of the most effective. Furthermore, Kepler’s theory also gave basis to Newton in order to develop the law of Gravity- one of science’s most important theories.
In conclusion, I believe that Kepler was the most revolutionary in comparison to Copernicus. This may seem like an odd choice, but the justifications prove why Kepler’s theory had more benefit that Coepernicus’, therefore showing how Kepler’s idea was more of a scientific breakthrough. As said earlier, it is difficult to decide upon whether or not a scientist merely made a discovery or a revolution as people will have different opinions on what defines such a term. It can then be said that to decide upon whether a scientist is a revolutionary or not is dependant on how the revolution has affected the individual (ie. Some will feel that Copernicus is more revolutionary than Kepler). Therefore , the concept of Kepler being the most revolutionary is merely opinionated , and there is no real way to decide which of the two can be deemed ‘the most revolutionary’.