Frank-- I have many of the same thoughts that Steven expressed.
Warm regatrds, Bob Cook From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 8:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Fred Zoepfl Frank, A decent review from Reigh who presumably has read your book and took the time to digest the contents and the ramifications. FYI, I have not read your book. I have no right to challenge it nor trash it. Despite my ignorance, I think I can say with some conviction that you are one of the most honest (honorary) boy scouts I've ever met on Vortex. I perceive one of your life's goals is to challenge the establishment. I suspect the curious will buy your book because they enjoy the challenge of having their current perceptions of physics challenged. And, of course, stalwarts will continue to trash it for the very same reasons, because they hate having their current perceptions of physics challenged. Let me put it this way, Frank, you are performing your job well. Granted, it's possible you may not enjoy aspects of your job at times, but that's the way the egg rolls. FWIW, I suspect my own ongoing research into Keplerian laws of planetary motion, if I ever accumulate enuf data to publish the results, will most likely be ignored by the establishment as well. My findings may be ridiculed. For example, I suspect I would most likely be laughed off the stage if I were to challenge the establishment by claiming that the heliocentric view of the solar system is NOT the only correct (or most accurate) representation of planetary motion. The prior geocentric model may also still work. IOW, it's possible that both models are not incompatible with each other. It's possible that the prior geocentric model failed because they used the wrong engineering configuration backed with incorrect math. My suspicion is that it's all a matter of establishing a point-of-view ... and then backing it up some appropriate math which hopefully will not turn out to be too complicated. Kepler 1st law states a planetary body rotates around a central mass fixed at one of two foci of an ellipse. Curiously, nobody has yet been able to determine what the other (empty) foci is doing. What planetary laws of motion might be governing what's happening at the empty (or imaginary) foci? I think Nature abhors a vacuum. Therefore, some kind of law may very well exist there - perhaps even a fascinating one. One possibility I thought about is that the angular change of the planetary position remains constant at the "empty" foci. Decades ago I checked out this possibility. While it is somewhat close, it is definitely NOT correct. I'm sure Kepler hundreds of years ago tired this out and noticed it did not match either, as have others since then. Dang! It would have been so elegant if it did match up! But Mother Nature said, No! You'll have to dig a little deeper to fathom my secretes. And so, my quixotic journey to discover what might be happening at the imaginary foci continues. I may succeed in my boy scout quest, or I may fail. But try, I must. Sancho keeps telling me: That's the way the egg rolls. ;-) I think most readers of such reviews can read between the lines and discern that Mr. Zoepfl most likely took the contents of your unread book as an unwanted challenge to his current perception of physics & reality. Zoepfl's review filled with unwarranted adjectives and disparaging characterizations of your intelligence is likely backfire on him, particularly if his objective had been to get you tar and feathered. It could very well make the curious even more curious. Why? Becuz the bright ones with the quixotic mind-set love to be challenged. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
