Re: [Vo]:An update on my on-going Kepler research efforts
Good. One needs to focus. Happy new year. On Dec 31, 2015 5:21 PM, "Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson" < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > After having been kicked out of Dr. Mills Yahoo Classical Physics group > earlier this year I came to the realization that I should probably spend > more time focusing on my own personal research work rather than wasting > endless hours indulging in circuitous conjecture that never gets resolved. > Resolution will only happen when (and if) Dr. Mills can pull his CHIT > technology together and demonstrate a working prototype that generates > electricity from the breakdown of water, some powdered metal, and the CHIT > catalyst. After that defrocking, combined with some additional > self-reflection I decided to unsubscribe from Vortex as well. This > additional self-imposed banishment was also done to help encourage me to > redouble my efforts to work on my on-going Kepler project. That I have done. > > > > As 2015 comes to an end I decided to briefly re-subscribe to Vortex... > just long enough to give a brief update to the Collective on how my > research is going. So… here goes: > > > > Back in October I experienced a minor epiphany concerning my Kepler > research. It occurred at my local Noodles and Co restaurant while scarfing > down a chicken Caesar salad. I was pouring over some Mathematica generated > graphics depicting plotted orbital positions and accompanying velocity > vectors. I suddenly noticed an interesting correlation having to do with > the two foci that make up a typical elliptical orbit. My epiphany came from > looking at the following link over the duration of several years. See: > > > > http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/orbit/orbit.2d.html > > > > These simple Mathematica graphics were generated from the physics > department of College of Saint Benedict (Saint John’s University) located > in Minnesota. Besides Wikipedia, additional useful resources for > understanding much of the physics behind Orbital Mechanics can be found at: > > > > http://www.jgiesen.de/kepler/ > > and > > http://www.stargazing.net/kepler/kepler.html > > > > > > The subtle information pertaining to my personal epiphany is embedded in > the geometry of the Mathematica diagrams. It’s related to how we apply > “Kepler’s equation” in order to plot the position of planets traversing an > elliptical orbit. The new information isn’t obvious at first sight. In > fact, it took me years to notice the startling new correlation. As best as > I can tell none of these orbital mechanical websites have carried through > and rearranged the geometry of some of these Keplerian diagrams in a manner > that I think Kepler would have eventually found himself doing had he lived > long enough to do so. Based on my own research I think it wouldn’t have > taken Kepler not all that much more observational powers to have discovered > three more Keplerian laws, additional laws that are just as important as > the 1st, 2nd law and 3rd laws. What stopped Johannes was the eventual > morality we all must face: Short lives… and perhaps not having sufficient > computing power at his quill to plot out a few additional theoretical > orbits to verify certain suspicions he may have speculated about. > > > > As we all know Kepler’s 1st law of planetary motion states: *“The path of > the planets about the sun is elliptical in shape, with the center of the > sun being located at one focus.* (The Law of Ellipses)” Over the > centuries there has been conjecture as to what might be happening at the > other (empty) foci. Does this seemingly unused focal point exhibit any kind > of particular Keplerian law of the same caliber as Kepler’s 1st law? As > best as I can tell nobody has managed to uncover a unique Kepler law that > specifically uses the other empty foci in an exclusive manner similar to > Kepler’s 1st law. Over the centuries respected researchers have puzzled > over this enigma including Richard Feynman. You can view some of Feynman’s > ponderings on the matter out at: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/qzcrpoy > > > > The best representation, to date, that I know of that tries to employ the > other "empty" foci is the string tied into a loop method which is then > placed around two separated thumbtacks. The two thumbtacks represent the > two foci of a hypothetical ellipse arrangement. This allows one to trace > out an ellipse when a pencil is placed between the two tacks and the string > is held tight. It’s quite clever in all honesty! Nevertheless, this > arrangement does not reveal anything exclusive as to what the empty foci > might reveal in its own right, similar to what Kepler’s 1st law reveals. I > confess, WHAT THE EMPTY UNFILED FOCI MIGHT REVEAL HAS BEEN AN OBSESSIVE > CURIOSITY THAT HAS SUCK WITH ME FOR, FOR DECADES. And now, in my early 60s, > I think I have managed to uncover the mystery of what the so-called empty > foci represents. > > > > I admit it is probably arrogant for me to say this (and it’s still > possi
[Vo]:An update on my on-going Kepler research efforts
After having been kicked out of Dr. Mills Yahoo Classical Physics group earlier this year I came to the realization that I should probably spend more time focusing on my own personal research work rather than wasting endless hours indulging in circuitous conjecture that never gets resolved. Resolution will only happen when (and if) Dr. Mills can pull his CHIT technology together and demonstrate a working prototype that generates electricity from the breakdown of water, some powdered metal, and the CHIT catalyst. After that defrocking, combined with some additional self-reflection I decided to unsubscribe from Vortex as well. This additional self-imposed banishment was also done to help encourage me to redouble my efforts to work on my on-going Kepler project. That I have done. As 2015 comes to an end I decided to briefly re-subscribe to Vortex... just long enough to give a brief update to the Collective on how my research is going. So. here goes: Back in October I experienced a minor epiphany concerning my Kepler research. It occurred at my local Noodles and Co restaurant while scarfing down a chicken Caesar salad. I was pouring over some Mathematica generated graphics depicting plotted orbital positions and accompanying velocity vectors. I suddenly noticed an interesting correlation having to do with the two foci that make up a typical elliptical orbit. My epiphany came from looking at the following link over the duration of several years. See: http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/orbit/orbit.2d.html These simple Mathematica graphics were generated from the physics department of College of Saint Benedict (Saint John's University) located in Minnesota. Besides Wikipedia, additional useful resources for understanding much of the physics behind Orbital Mechanics can be found at: http://www.jgiesen.de/kepler/ and http://www.stargazing.net/kepler/kepler.html The subtle information pertaining to my personal epiphany is embedded in the geometry of the Mathematica diagrams. It's related to how we apply "Kepler's equation" in order to plot the position of planets traversing an elliptical orbit. The new information isn't obvious at first sight. In fact, it took me years to notice the startling new correlation. As best as I can tell none of these orbital mechanical websites have carried through and rearranged the geometry of some of these Keplerian diagrams in a manner that I think Kepler would have eventually found himself doing had he lived long enough to do so. Based on my own research I think it wouldn't have taken Kepler not all that much more observational powers to have discovered three more Keplerian laws, additional laws that are just as important as the 1st, 2nd law and 3rd laws. What stopped Johannes was the eventual morality we all must face: Short lives. and perhaps not having sufficient computing power at his quill to plot out a few additional theoretical orbits to verify certain suspicions he may have speculated about. As we all know Kepler's 1st law of planetary motion states: "The path of the planets about the sun is elliptical in shape, with the center of the sun being located at one focus. (The Law of Ellipses)" Over the centuries there has been conjecture as to what might be happening at the other (empty) foci. Does this seemingly unused focal point exhibit any kind of particular Keplerian law of the same caliber as Kepler's 1st law? As best as I can tell nobody has managed to uncover a unique Kepler law that specifically uses the other empty foci in an exclusive manner similar to Kepler's 1st law. Over the centuries respected researchers have puzzled over this enigma including Richard Feynman. You can view some of Feynman's ponderings on the matter out at: http://tinyurl.com/qzcrpoy The best representation, to date, that I know of that tries to employ the other "empty" foci is the string tied into a loop method which is then placed around two separated thumbtacks. The two thumbtacks represent the two foci of a hypothetical ellipse arrangement. This allows one to trace out an ellipse when a pencil is placed between the two tacks and the string is held tight. It's quite clever in all honesty! Nevertheless, this arrangement does not reveal anything exclusive as to what the empty foci might reveal in its own right, similar to what Kepler's 1st law reveals. I confess, WHAT THE EMPTY UNFILED FOCI MIGHT REVEAL HAS BEEN AN OBSESSIVE CURIOSITY THAT HAS SUCK WITH ME FOR, FOR DECADES. And now, in my early 60s, I think I have managed to uncover the mystery of what the so-called empty foci represents. I admit it is probably arrogant for me to say this (and it's still possible I may be proven wrong) but I believe I know exactly what kind of information the empty foci reveals - in Keplerian terms. In order to explain it in Keplerian terms I believe it will be important for me to establish three additional honorary Keplerian laws. The first two of these new laws are based o
