I have a follow-up.
. . . In my previous post I concluded with: > One final comment: As time goes by maybe I'll eventually discover > the sobering fact that most, if not all of my elliptical planetary > motion observations are incorrect. Or maybe if I'm lucky I'll learn > they were simply in need of some serious revisions. Being wrong > about how we think Nature behaves is more often the norm then the > exception. It's the risk (and adventure) we have all signed up to play. > > In the meantime, this 1's 4 u, Johannes. ...did I get it right? A very kind person was gracious enough to bring to my attention the following link out in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_orbit Scroll down to the Orbital Period section. My computer simulations had already been documented. Alas, personal fantasies of anticipated greatness, of making the discovery of the century. visions that I will live in the history books for all to be in awe of my mental acuity will have to wait for some other project. ;-) But, hey! Look at the bright side! Fears that my calculations and observations had been incorrect were unfounded. It's nice to know that I was right all along. I still think the law ought to be written up as Kepler's honorary 4th law of planetary motion. It strikes me as very intuitive law - particularly in a visual way. I think Kepler would have been amused. Thank you SK. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
