Harry,
Thanks for sharing your work on orbital mechanics geometry with me and with the rest of the Vort Collective. Wow! That is a really fascinating animated geometric construct. Incredibly elaborate. You appear to be quite gifted in your ability to build complicated animation concepts. My complements! And now, here's my critique! (Don't worry. I'm still extremely impressed.) I desperately wanted to be able to stop your animated gif at various points. There are many, MANY, lines and circles you are generating here as you try to get your point across. I keep getting lost. I can't keep up with what you are trying to reveal. I suspect your construct would be better understood and appreciated by the general public (and me too) if you could break the steps down into more digestible chunks. I would also recommend adding some descriptive wording here and there as you pause after something important has or is about to happen. One lesson I've had to learn the hard way about my own Kepler related work is that we, the researcher, can become somewhat isolated (blinded) by the fact that if we throw a bunch of data too quickly at the novice observer, the person will not be able to follow all the steps. It's not their fault. It's just too much data for a novice to digest in one meal. When they get lost, they give up. We forget that in our own heads what now looks so utterly clear and simple to us still looks utterly confusing to a novice. We have spent weeks and months working out all the geometry in our own brain. The information has essentially become hardwired in our understanding of all the crucial geometry involved. Alas, a new observer has not yet had the chance to build such hardwiring into their own wetwiring. I'm interested in what you are attempting to reveal because I want to understand if there might exist a relationship with your work and mine. It would appear that my application of orbital mechanics geometry reveals very different things than what your geometry appears to reveal. My research into orbital mechanics geometry appears to reveal that VELOCITY vectors can be discerned directly out of Kepler's elliptic construct. All one has to do is add a little extra geometry, and suddenly it all becomes clear. One apparent difference between your work and mine is that my constructs appear to be more simplified. I'm aiming for the same kind of simplicity that Kepler revealed in his three famous laws. I think I have found that simplicity too. Two of the three additional laws (Laws 4 & 5) are actually already known to scholars. But their significance is not understood (or perceived) as additional Kepler laws. I want to rectify that. The third new law (law 6) is, to the best of my knowledge, unknown to the public domain. It shows how to use the empty foci to construct velocity measurements. Steven Vincent Johnson orionworks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 5:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes Steven, I know that in the past you have wondered if the second focus of an ellipse could have any role to play in the determination of orbits, since it plays no role in Kepler laws or in Newton's derivation of Kepler laws. Well a few years ago, I invented a geometrical method in which the second focus of an ellipse is first located prior to determining the shape and size of an orbit. Information about speed and escape velocity is first mapped to positions on the circumference of a circle and this point is used to projectively locate the second focus (Fe) relative to the planet which is located at the first focus (Fp). Once the second focus is located the shape of orbit can be computed. However, my computations consist of geometric constructions and a gif animation which you can view here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_i-KDTRAy7I9q54g6H22shW7M5e-fj36Sva_seHj75Y/edit?usp=sharing This method of drawing conic sections is not new, but I think how I use of this method is new. Harry
