Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
I'm sorry, orbits. You could try to find the law using it.
Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
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
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
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
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
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 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&D 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 relatio
Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
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&D 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 > per
RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
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&D 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
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 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
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/ >