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 > 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 > > >
