Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[H LV]

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:08 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> Woah! I didn't expect to see so much commentary on this particular
> thread.  I had to re-subscribe a while longer.
>
>
>
> Harry, the link you supplied on Feynman's Lost Lecture on Motions around
> the Sun did the trick for me. I finally get what your animated GIF was
> trying to tell me. I like what Feynman did with the empty foci. That is
> cool! Thanks!
>
>
>
> It will be interesting to see if I can find any linkages with what Feynman
> did and what I'm trying to work out with my own velocity vector work.
>
>
>
> You're working on a third way?
>
>
>

​Feynman's way appears to be the same as my own, but there are differences.
Notice that Feynman's large circle or velocity circle, which contains the
ellipse, is centred on the Sun. I don't use a velocity circle but I do use
 a large circle which appears​ to be the same thing as the velocity circle.
However, the centre of my large circle is located at the empty focus (Fe).

I see gravitational motion as a dance of circles rather than as a force
acting on inertial motion. In my opinion the law of inertia should only
apply to motions which are clearly caused by collisions or forces of
contact. In this respect I am granting circles a power they have not had
since before Newton.

​Harry​

RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

My math background, particularly use of proper math terminology, is somewhat 
elementary at times. Recently, I have taken several refresher courses in 
calculus. It's been an interesting experience.

I was not familiar with the term "Laplace–Runge–Lenz vectors". I may have 
shorthanded the term, for my own elementary needs to "Velocity Vectors" as 
pertaining to planetary orbits. "Velocity Vectors" is easier for me to 
remember. ;-) This is a good wikipedia link. I'm pretty sure I will be going 
through it with a fine tooth comb. The information here is VERY relevant to 
what I'm working on. I've already started comparing notes. This is going to 
take a while.

Thanks for the Link Daniel.

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson
orionworks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com 

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[Daniel Rocha]

Yes! ^_^'"

2016-05-24 21:30 GMT-03:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net>:

> "LRL" = "LGL"?
>
> I assume you miss keyed "R" as "G".
>
> From: Daniel Rocha
>

RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

"LRL" = "LGL"?

I assume you miss keyed "R" as "G".

From: Daniel Rocha

> I posted above, but, here it goes again :)

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%E2%80%93Runge%E2%80%93Lenz_vector#Derivation_of_the_Kepler_orbits

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[Daniel Rocha]

I posted above, but, here it goes again :)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%E2%80%93Runge%E2%80%93Lenz_vector#Derivation_of_the_Kepler_orbits

2016-05-24 20:37 GMT-03:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net>:

> What does "LGL" stand for?
>

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

What does "LGL" stand for?

>From Daniel:

> I have other projects! But if I have to suggest anything is to try to 
> find Kepler's law using LGL vectors in the simplest way.

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[Daniel Rocha]

I have other projects! But if I have to suggest anything is to try to find
Kepler's law using LGL vectors in the simplest way.

2016-05-24 19:08 GMT-03:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net>:

>
> You're working on a third way?
>

RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Woah! I didn't expect to see so much commentary on this particular thread.  I 
had to re-subscribe a while longer.

 

Harry, the link you supplied on Feynman's Lost Lecture on Motions around the 
Sun did the trick for me. I finally get what your animated GIF was trying to 
tell me. I like what Feynman did with the empty foci. That is cool! Thanks!

 

It will be interesting to see if I can find any linkages with what Feynman did 
and what I'm trying to work out with my own velocity vector work.

 

You're working on a third way?

 

Daniel, thank you very much for sharing the links to Gary Rubenstien's lectures 
on Newton's Principia Explained. Over the years I have actually generated a lot 
of animated computer code that essentially exploit Newton's principals. Doing 
do animates planetary orbits very nicely. It's fun to do. Indeed, I proved to 
myself that the area of each plotted triangle do equal each other. As long as 
one keeps individual iterations reasonably small the accuracy can turn out to 
be astonishing, several orders of magnitude accurate.

 

Thanks for giving me another excuse to delay doing my house-work.

 

Regards,

 

Steven Vincent Johnson

orionworks.com

http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks

http://stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com/

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[Daniel Rocha]

I'm sorry, orbits. You could try to find the law using it.

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[Daniel Rocha]

There is also the LRL vector, which can be used to derive Kepler's law in 3
lines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%E2%80%93Runge%E2%80%93Lenz_vector#Derivation_of_the_Kepler_orbits

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[H LV]

Yes, it is possible to begin with kepler's laws and the law of inertia and
derive the force law of gravity or to begin with the force law of gravity
and the law of inertia and derive Kepler's laws.

I am working on third way.

Harry

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Newton's derivation of the force of gravity from Kepler's law of ellipsis
> is explained nicely in this series of lectures:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB3D1F0F64E98FDBF
>
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[Daniel Rocha]

Hmm! Gary also derived using the original method, so it is good to see both
approaches and how algebra makes life so much easier than just using
geometric algebra. In Newton's time, though, geometric algebra was widely
teach, more so than algebra, including theorems about ellipsis which are
not as well known nowadays.

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[Daniel Rocha]

Newton's derivation of the force of gravity from Kepler's law of ellipsis
is explained nicely in this series of lectures:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB3D1F0F64E98FDBF

Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[H LV]

Whoops, I sent that before I was finished.

I wanted to add that a mathematician named Gary Rubinstein did a nice
series of videos explaining Feynman's geometrical derivation of Kepler's
laws.
No calculus is used because the argument is strictly geometrical. Here is
the first of eight videos in the series. Each one is about 10 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObVDk7WPm9Y

Anyway, I will let you resume your house-work.

Harry

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:08 PM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Steven,
>
> Your criticisms are quite justified. The problem is I don't know how to
> pause a gif animation. At this time I didn't expect to leave more than an
> "impression" so I apologize if the lack of detail frustrated you.
>
> Are you familiar with a book called Feynman's Lost Lectures? It is based
> on Feynman's lecture notes, where Feynman recontructs Newton's
> *geometrical* derivation of Kelper's laws. He reconstructs it up to a
> point, but then he admits that he lacks the geometrical knowledge to follow
> Newton's argument to the end so he employs a modern trick using velocity
> vectors to simplify the argument.
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
> orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Harry,
>>
>> I need to remove myself from Vortex again in order to prevent further
>> temptation to commit commentary.
>>
>> I'll return after I have another progress report to make. One thing I've
>> learned about my own R endeavors is that it's taking a LOT longer to
>> manifest than what I had originally anticipated. I knew there would be
>> delays, but not this much. The experience has given me a greater
>> appreciation for just how long it's taking the fractious CF community to
>> get their chickens lined up. Crossing the road is filled with risks. It's
>> easy to get run over.
>>
>> Please feel free to contact me privately via Email if you're interested
>> in further correspondence. Speaking selfishly for myself, I hope you might
>> be able to parse your interesting GIF animation down to more digestible
>> chunks so that I can better follow the steps. There is a lot going on there.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>> orionworks.com
>> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>> stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
>> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:28 PM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
>>
>> 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 me

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[H LV]

Steven,

Your criticisms are quite justified. The problem is I don't know how to
pause a gif animation. At this time I didn't expect to leave more than an
"impression" so I apologize if the lack of detail frustrated you.

Are you familiar with a book called Feynman's Lost Lectures? It is based on
Feynman's lecture notes, where Feynman recontructs Newton's *geometrical*
derivation of Kelper's laws. He reconstructs it up to a point, but then he
admits that he lacks the geometrical knowledge to follow Newton's argument
to the end so he employs a modern trick using velocity vectors to simplify
the argument.

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> Harry,
>
> I need to remove myself from Vortex again in order to prevent further
> temptation to commit commentary.
>
> I'll return after I have another progress report to make. One thing I've
> learned about my own R endeavors is that it's taking a LOT longer to
> manifest than what I had originally anticipated. I knew there would be
> delays, but not this much. The experience has given me a greater
> appreciation for just how long it's taking the fractious CF community to
> get their chickens lined up. Crossing the road is filled with risks. It's
> easy to get run over.
>
> Please feel free to contact me privately via Email if you're interested in
> further correspondence. Speaking selfishly for myself, I hope you might be
> able to parse your interesting GIF animation down to more digestible chunks
> so that I can better follow the steps. There is a lot going on there.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> orionworks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
> stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com
>
>
>
>
>
> From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:28 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
>
> 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, unkn

RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Harry,

I need to remove myself from Vortex again in order to prevent further 
temptation to commit commentary.

I'll return after I have another progress report to make. One thing I've 
learned about my own R endeavors is that it's taking a LOT longer to manifest 
than what I had originally anticipated. I knew there would be delays, but not 
this much. The experience has given me a greater appreciation for just how long 
it's taking the fractious CF community to get their chickens lined up. Crossing 
the road is filled with risks. It's easy to get run over.

Please feel free to contact me privately via Email if you're interested in 
further correspondence. Speaking selfishly for myself, I hope you might be able 
to parse your interesting GIF animation down to more digestible chunks so that 
I can better follow the steps. There is a lot going on there.

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson
orionworks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com





From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

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 con

RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

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

 

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[H LV]

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




On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:38 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> I've been retired now for almost 18 months. I'm happy to report I'm not
> bored. My on-going Kepler research project continues to consume much of my
> quality time. But alas, summer is just around the corner, and there seems
> to be a spate of honey-do projects that are about to consume a good chunk
> of my free energy.
>
>
>
> Dear Johannes,
>
>
>
> I hope you won't mind it too much if I place our work temporarily on the
> bench... perhaps for several months while I go about retouching up the
> exterior of the house. I just want you to know that I currently see at
> least three additional laws that I would like to document as additions, or
> complements, to your original three. I think you'll like the additions. I
> see a nice symmetry that enhances the simplicity and beauty of your work.
> However, the amount of computer coding and animation that I feel I'll need
> to create in order to adequately show all of these additional Keplerian
> laws feels a tad overwhelming at the moment. It feels important to me that
> I develop my animations in easy-to-understand chewable bites. Creating a
> new series of easy to chew cookies is not always an easy recipe to bake.
>
>
>
> Yours truly
>
>
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> orionworks.com
>
> http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
> http://stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com/
>

[Vo]:Dear Johannes

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

I've been retired now for almost 18 months. I'm happy to report I'm not
bored. My on-going Kepler research project continues to consume much of my
quality time. But alas, summer is just around the corner, and there seems to
be a spate of honey-do projects that are about to consume a good chunk of my
free energy.

 

Dear Johannes,

 

I hope you won't mind it too much if I place our work temporarily on the
bench... perhaps for several months while I go about retouching up the
exterior of the house. I just want you to know that I currently see at least
three additional laws that I would like to document as additions, or
complements, to your original three. I think you'll like the additions. I
see a nice symmetry that enhances the simplicity and beauty of your work.
However, the amount of computer coding and animation that I feel I'll need
to create in order to adequately show all of these additional Keplerian laws
feels a tad overwhelming at the moment. It feels important to me that I
develop my animations in easy-to-understand chewable bites. Creating a new
series of easy to chew cookies is not always an easy recipe to bake.

 

Yours truly

 

Steven Vincent Johnson

orionworks.com

http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks

http://stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com/