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 > 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 on well-known orbital mechanical principals. Well… I > should really say these are mathematical principals well known to those who > have studied the characteristics of orbital mechanics, but not necessarily > to the general public. In order to reveal the third new law, the law which > explains what the so-called empty foci represents, I will need to first > define these two additional laws as important support to the third law. > These are laws that in my opinion Kepler, himself, would have published if > he just had more time, and perhaps more computing power at his fingertips. > In a sense, it sometimes feels as if I’m doing this in a posthumous > fashion, sort of in honor of Kepler. > > > > So, what does the empty foci reveal? > > > > In a nutshell: *The empty foci reveals velocity vector information that > is both directly linked and correlated with each planetary position within > the elliptical path taken.* > > > > PLEASE NOTE: Do not confuse my use of the term “velocity vectors” with > what has been defined as “angular momentum.” That is a completely different > animal – another exotic creature that I might possibly tackle at a later > date. > > > > This velocity vector information I refer to is not necessarily obvious at > first sight – not in Keplerian terms. I need to stress that this > information is not something that has not already been meticulously > published nor plotted out in various permutations involving mathematical / > derivative / integral / parametric equations. In fact, I will need to > resort to using a number of these known equations in order to computer > animate the movement of my planets. That said, due to my own initial > ignorance of orbital mechanics I often ended up having to self-educate > myself of the basic principles associated with orbital mechanics. This > often resulted in me in self-discovering certain facts on my own and from > such an obtuse observational perspective that it’s still possible I might > end up contributing a few new equations to the current mulligan stew. A > crucial point I’m trying to make here is that I believe we need to > rearrange some of the geometry currently used in order to make the three > new Keplerian laws pop out in glaring obviousness. IMO so much more of what > currently makes up the fundamental architecture of orbital mechanics can be > revealed through the use of simple geometry. Doing so, I think, would be > more intuitively understandable for many. The three new Keplerian laws are > all there, visually speaking! As I see it, the way we have currently > exploited some of the mathematical equations used to define orbital > mechanics has unfortunately ended up compartmentalizing too much of the > information and in a sense obfuscating what I would describe as an utter > simplicity I suspect Kepler had intuitively sensed. I hope I can reveal > some of that utter simplicity within the simple geometry of the ellipse > itself. I suspect Johannes was endeavoring to do just that, if only he had > had more time. > > > > Some Spin Off Speculation: At this early stage, I don’t know if this will > eventually pan out or not, but the speculated addition of these potential > additional Keplerian laws might suggest that, in quantum mechanical terms, > it might be possible to measure BOTH the position and velocity of > sub-atomic particles simultaneously. According to quantum mechanics as it > is currently taught, that is a definite no-no. But if both the position and > velocity could be mapped out simultaneously, could this have useful > industrial applications? > > > > It’s going to take me some time to generate the appropriate code and > animations to do it proper justice. I’ve been working full-time on this > project since last April. My hunch is that I’m in for the big haul for at > least another year or two of meticulous analysis and coding before my > findings are sufficiently refined to a point that it's ready to be placed > out on-line for others to ponder. Why so long? Hey! Your’re all Vorts, > right? You should all be aware of the inevitable delays that come with any > worthy project! Think of Steorn, Rossi, Mills… While most of these > individuals and/or their organizations continue to show signs of definite > progress, to the best of my knowledge none of them have yet to break out of > the pack and sprint to the finish line as the clear winner. As for me and > my own endeavors, what I’ve learned about retirement is that it doesn’t > necessarily translate into acquiring oodles of free-time at my disposal. > One word explains it all: > > > > HoneyDo! > > > > In the meantime, I continue to passively check in on the Vortex archives, > sometimes daily. Typically, I check subject lines for relevance. Next, I > like to check out what Jed Rothwell may have felt compelled to comment on, > or perhaps just to simply to announce for the benefit of the Vort > Collective. If I find both Jed and Jones posting repeatedly in same subject > thread, I know I'll be interested! > > > > And now, back to work... and a little NY Eves celebration. > > > > c u all in 2016! > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > OrionWorks.com > > zazzle.com/orionworks >
