I'm writing a lab report about an experiment I did where I essentially tested the effects of various planetary characteristics on a planet's orbital period. The planetary characteristics that I tested where eccentricity, mass, and distance from the Sun (or semi-major axis). As you might imagine, I found that mass and eccentricity had virtually no effect when I changed them in the simulation I was using, but distance from the Sun did have an effect. I didn't know before I did this lab that mass and eccentricity would have no effect.
Should I write the lab report including my investigation about the eccentricity and mass, or should I write it as if I only tested distance from the Sun? I'm worried that if I include testing eccentricity and mass, it may be confusing. Specifically, if I did include them, would I have three hypotheses, one for each variable? If I don't include them, should I still mention them in my conclusion? We're supposed to write about what we learned, and I did learn that eccentricity and mass had little effect on orbital period. Should I have data tables for mass and eccentricity if they had no effect/do I need them if I make the report about testing all three?
Sorry, I hope this isn't too confusing.
Some of Kepler's laws are relevant here, but I didn't use them.
The Attempt at a Solution
So far, I've been writing it kind of as a mix between the two. I have three hypotheses, I mentioned everything in the conclusion, but I didn't include a data table with data from testing mass and eccentricity. I also didn't mention mass and eccentricity in the method.