During the past decade or so... during what little free time I have had at my disposal, I have occasionally found myself constructing extensive computer simulations to study the physics known as planetary motion. This means I've spend a lot of time studying elliptical orbits as originally defined by Johannes Kepler. In my studies I've occasionally come across interesting observations I didn't previously understand about the characteristics of "planetary motion". I've also, on more than one occasion, accidentally stumbled across a few unexpected surprises. I now feel reasonably confident enough to describe one of those accidental surprises in a little more detail.
Let me simply state for the record that IMHO had Kepler had access to personal computers I suspect he would have come up with more than the three laws of planetary motion. Here's a decent description of Kepler's three laws of planetary motion as described in the following Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion I'll also I bet that it wouldn't have taken Kepler anywhere near the number years it has taken me to stumble and bumble my way to noticing the "fourth" law of planetary motion. Kepler probably would have noticed it all on his own in a couple of minutes. Ok, having now made another outrageous statement it will hopeful have done its job of twitching a few Vort eyebrows. ;-) In honor of Johannes Kepler I'd like to propose an additional law called Kepler's Honorary Fourth Law of Planetary Motion: Fourth Law: All elliptical orbital periods that remain constant while their individual elliptical eccentricities vary between 0 to 1 share the same length in the semi-major axis. Special case 1: This includes a perfect orbital circle, (eccentricity of "0") where the diameter of the circle turns out to be the same length as the semi-major axis length. Special case 2: This includes the unique circumstance where there exists zero angular momentum, (where the orbital eccentricity is "1"). What happens in this case is that the satellite drops directly towards the central mass and makes "virtual" contact with the center in 1/2 of the orbital period. If the satellite were to magically "bounce" back at 100%, it would return to the exact same original position in another 1/2 of an orbital period. Please note that the above statement assumes we are using the same central mass and the same mass for the orbiting satellite. An "orbital period" means the amount of time it takes for a satellite to make a complete orbit around a central mass. Disclaimer: I do not claim that I... Steven Vincent Johnson, [whose name will now exist forever in infamy - and possibly in someone's Facebookk page as well.], has personally discovered what I have so boldly described here as the "4th "law" of planetary motion. Quite frankly, I think this knowledge already exists. IMO, there exists ample evidence sprinkled on-line here and there. Anyone who has an obsessive propensity to study the characteristics of planetary motion can start putting the pieces together. Said differently, I'm sure this "fourth law" had probably been discovered long ago by eccentric (pardon the pun) astrophysicists, nerds, and geeks who work at places like NASA or DoD as they went about their jobs of figuring out how best to map and plot the orbital paths of satellites. Think about reconnaissance satellites that might spend some of their time in geosynchronous orbit, but then on special command have their orbital period altered in order to swoop down to a much lower orbit to shoot detailed imagery of a missile complex at the exact same spot on earth - every 24 hours. Understanding the ramifications of 4th law as it pertains to maintaining a consistent orbital period of 24 hours would possibly help clarify some of the physics that is involved. While it's probably another arrogant stretch for me to speculate on the following matter: I wonder if this new "4th law" might turn out to be useful in some obscure way in describing certain kinds of quantum mechanical effects having to do with the characteristics of electron orbital shells as they go about altering their orbital periods and probability shapes. But honestly, I dunno. Hopefully, no hydrinos will be harmed in the ensuing experiments to come! ;-) Let me repeat, I personally haven't seen any direct documentation that describes this 4th law as such. Perhaps it really does exist in some obscure astrophysics document deeply buried in an obscure link somewhere. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if that really is the case. Never the less, I have chosen to describe it here within Vortex-L, just in case such documentation doesn't exist. Call it bragging rights! Better yet, let's call it Kepler's 4rth Honorary Law of Planetary Motion! ;-) In the meantime, anyone who is possesses an obsessive flair to write computer simulations, and has several weeks of free time to waste (instead of attending to the needs a spouse, a S/O, or other family members), I would encourage them to build an orbital simulator of their own to test out my outrageous claim. See if it holds up, or whether I am mistaken. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
