[supaluminus]

How are you defining "complete"? Just the sun and planets? Planets and moons?

Complete as in complete.

This is the problem; there is rarely any such thing in science. Tried really hard to convey this to you in another thread, with respect to the meaning of the term "uncertainty" in a scientific context, but maybe it didn't sink in.

We can only be as certain about our measurements as the tools we use to take those measurements. We don't have a tool with infinite precision, so there will always be some discrepancy, however small.

Just think of an inch ruler. Now go down to half inches. Now quarter. Eighth, one sixteenth, one thirty-second, one sixy-fourth, and so on. Just as the cosmos on a macro scale expands infinitely outward, so too do the micro cosmos shrink infinitely inward.

So again, you need to define your terms. How "complete" is "complete?" What level of discrepancy would you accept? At what point, from earth out into deep space, would you be satisfied to say, "Okay, we can stop here, this is accurate enough for us to call it samesies."

[totallackey]

Why is CGI necessary? CGI is expensive and hard to do, that's why movies cost millions of dollars to make. If we have a description of what the CGI should look like, why isn't that enough?

What about the current CGI representations? Did they cost "millions of dollars to make?"

Are you simply happy with those because they present what accepted science declares the heliocentric model looks like?

No, it is not enough.

The link from Rama Set is such a thing.

There was a working CGI model, based on the works of Kepler and Newton, in there?

Where?

If it is there, point it out and end the argument.

Really quite simple.

It probably doesn't explicitly use the words "Newton" and "Kepler" any more than you do when you are driving, despite the fact that you are obeying Newton's laws. You use the equations, you don't invoke the names as if they are some religious chant.

Okay, the equations are Newton's and Kepler's?

Where?

Point them out and end it.

I will get them to a software engineer capable of entering them into a computer to render the results.

[totallackey]

How are you defining "complete"? Just the sun and planets? Planets and moons?

Complete as in complete.

This is the problem; there is rarely any such thing in science. Tried really hard to convey this to you in another thread, with respect to the meaning of the term "uncertainty" in a scientific context, but maybe it didn't sink in.

We can only be as certain about our measurements as the tools we use to take those measurements. We don't have a tool with infinite precision, so there will always be some discrepancy, however small.

Just think of an inch ruler. Now go down to half inches. Now quarter. Eighth, one sixteenth, one thirty-second, one sixy-fourth, and so on. Just as the cosmos on a macro scale expands infinitely outward, so too do the micro cosmos shrink infinitely inward.

So again, you need to define your terms. How "complete" is "complete?" What level of discrepancy would you accept? At what point, from earth out into deep space, would you be satisfied to say, "Okay, we can stop here, this is accurate enough for us to call it samesies."

Newton found Kepler's work to be unambiguous and provided support.

Scientists today find both unambiguous and credit them when releasing information in textbooks and papers.

Seems accurate enough to me.

So, complete as in complete.

There are CGI representations a plenty out there.

None fit the bill when it comes to actually modeling the Sun's movement in terms of revolutions, with planets in tow, about the Milky Way.

So far, efforts to accurately model the movement are bupkus.

Don't blame me for pointing this out.

[supaluminus]

How are you defining "complete"? Just the sun and planets? Planets and moons?

Complete as in complete.

This is the problem; there is rarely any such thing in science. Tried really hard to convey this to you in another thread, with respect to the meaning of the term "uncertainty" in a scientific context, but maybe it didn't sink in.

We can only be as certain about our measurements as the tools we use to take those measurements. We don't have a tool with infinite precision, so there will always be some discrepancy, however small.

Just think of an inch ruler. Now go down to half inches. Now quarter. Eighth, one sixteenth, one thirty-second, one sixy-fourth, and so on. Just as the cosmos on a macro scale expands infinitely outward, so too do the micro cosmos shrink infinitely inward.

So again, you need to define your terms. How "complete" is "complete?" What level of discrepancy would you accept? At what point, from earth out into deep space, would you be satisfied to say, "Okay, we can stop here, this is accurate enough for us to call it samesies."

Newton found Kepler's work to be unambiguous and provided support.

Scientists today find both unambiguous and credit them when releasing information in textbooks and papers.

Seems accurate enough to me.

So, complete as in complete.

There are CGI representations a plenty out there.

None fit the bill when it comes to actually modeling the Sun's movement in terms of revolutions, with planets in tow, about the Milky Way.

So far, efforts to accurately model the movement are bupkus.

Don't blame me for pointing this out.

Willing to be proven wrong, but I don't think it's as unambiguous as you say.

Granted, I'm not saying it's "unreliable," it just seems to me like you're describing it in terms we could call 100% concrete or 100% certain... which is simply not accurate. Just like in the other thread when you claimed how scientists say they have "all the math" or "all the answers," as I deduced you meant, if you're using the same context here, I can say with 99.999999% "certainty" that you're mistaken... Get it?

Anyway, I'll get back to you tonight about the trig function and how it measures the earth's curvature inaccurately - not nearly as inaccurate as your claims about science, but that's another conversation - but we can hash out this claim about the mathematics behind the movements of celestial bodies afterwards.

[totallackey]

Willing to be proven wrong, but I don't think it's as unambiguous as you say.

Okay, am I to place you on record as writing something to the equivalent of: "It is not necessary to include the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Laws of planetary motion when rendering a CGI of the Solar System."?

Granted, I'm not saying it's "unreliable," it just seems to me like you're describing it in terms we could call 100% concrete or 100% certain... which is simply not accurate.

Newton was wrong in his Laws of Thermodynamics?

Kepler's Laws of planetary motion are wrong?

Just like in the other thread when you claimed how scientists say they have "all the math" or "all the answers," as I deduced you meant, if you're using the same context here, I can say with 99.999999% "certainty" that you're mistaken... Get it?

I happen to agree that scientists do not know anything when it comes to something they  cannot actually put their hands on, but I am not the one preaching the gospel like NdGT or Bill Nye, nor am I the one stating textbooks are factual.

They are and they behave as if they are gods walking amongst insects.

And the most they generally have to offer, when hard pressed, is a condescending, "Take our word for it," or some other form of BS answer.

That is my opinion on that specific matter.

Anyway, I'll get back to you tonight about the trig function and how it measures the earth's curvature inaccurately - not nearly as inaccurate as your claims about science, but that's another conversation - but we can hash out this claim about the mathematics behind the movements of celestial bodies afterwards.

Okay.

[supaluminus]

Willing to be proven wrong, but I don't think it's as unambiguous as you say.

Okay, am I to place you on record as writing something to the equivalent of: "It is not necessary to include the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Laws of planetary motion when rendering a CGI of the Solar System."?

No. What you could do is walk me through whatever gymnastics you just did in your head to go from, “science is not 100% certain” to “we can just throw out Kepler and Newton all together, we don’t need that bullshit.” I get lost between those two statements, help me out.

Granted, I'm not saying it's "unreliable," it just seems to me like you're describing it in terms we could call 100% concrete or 100% certain... which is simply not accurate.

Newton was wrong in his Laws of Thermodynamics?

Kepler's Laws of planetary motion are wrong?

Once more, with feeling this time. Walk me through how you got from MY words to YOURS. I’m not really seeing the equivalence. Help me see where you’re coming from.

Just like in the other thread when you claimed how scientists say they have "all the math" or "all the answers," as I deduced you meant, if you're using the same context here, I can say with 99.999999% "certainty" that you're mistaken... Get it?

I happen to agree that scientists do not know anything when it comes to something they  cannot actually put their hands on, but I am not the one preaching the gospel like NdGT or Bill Nye, nor am I the one stating textbooks are factual.

They are and they behave as if they are gods walking amongst insects.

And the most they generally have to offer, when hard pressed, is a condescending, "Take our word for it," or some other form of BS answer.

That is my opinion on that specific matter.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH that helps.

See, it’s pretty obvious you have a massive chip on your shoulder when it comes to scientists and how they engage with the public. I will concede to you that they haven’t always done a good job - Hell, I’ll go further, they done fucked up if THIS is the result we find ourselves with - but you clearly don’t understand that science IS agnostic.

I’m sorry. I know you have a charicature in your head of how scientists are and you make certain assumptions about how they do their work, but you’re just wrong. I explained how and why a few times now, but rather than address my objections, you ignore them, double down on the previous claim, and then show everyone here the underbelly of your victim complex.

Climb down off the cross and stop straw-manning me and the topic of science. As I said in another thread, if you’re going to criticize scientists for how they do science, the least you could do is try to represent both subjects accurately. Anything less shows either a willingness to straw-man your opponent with incomplete, inaccurate representations of their position, or a complete lack of comprehension, or both. Your responses so far make you a strong candidate for the latter, by my reckoning.

Not gonna argue with you any further on this point, just wanted to make it clear that you’ve got a bone to pick with science and it has totally skewed your perception to the point that you are haphazardly over-simplifying really important distinctions like the difference between “not 100% certain” and just winging it for shits and giggles.

I don’t expect my words alone to unravel your bald-faced bias and willingness to misunderstand or misrepresent the opponent position, but I felt it needed to be pointed out. Everyone has bias, but you’re really not trying to compensate for that, at all, if you’re gonna argue the way you have been.

[Curious Squirrel]

So no, you have no credible idea why such a model would exist...

Yes I do have a credible idea about why such a model would exist.

Such a model would exist because we have the technology to produce it.

Such a model would exist because it is accepted science. 

...and don't seem to understand why such a model wouldn't necessarily come out and list Kepler and Newton explicitly.

It would list Kepler and Newton because they are the persons credited as being behind the fundamental science our knowledge of planetary motion and proper etiquette demands credit be given to those providing the base of research or presentation.

You've basically created a straw man to attack with no evidence your own claims are correct. Enjoy getting to pretend you've won I guess?

Nope.

Just want the model for examination.

I asked what the purpose of creating such an accurate CGI model would be. You answered 'because'. A project to the accuracy and size you are requesting would cost hundreds, if not thousands of man hours of work to create. Such an endeavor requires funding, getting that funding requires a reason. Simply saying "Because it should exist!" is not a reason for investors to fund the project, nor for most people to wish to make it. The scientific community at large also has no desire to make it to 'prove Kepler/Newton right' because they already have been for as far/much as their laws cover.

I highly doubt what you're asking for is impossible. I DO however doubt anyone would desire to spend the money/time to create it to the standards you are demanding. Because there's no practical purpose for such a thing.

This is why most will take a shortcut of some kind to reduce the math and effort needed to create something. Like the one from the other thread that assumed circular orbits (most orbits aren't all that far off being circles anyway, Earth for example only has a 0.0167 eccentricity) to reduce calculations needed and make the creation of the model easier.

[Rama Set]

Here is a simulation that uses NASA data to simulate the solar system. It is all open source and he has a blog describing his methodology, briefly, and his data sources.

http://lab.la-grange.ca/en/building-jsorrery-a-javascript-webgl-solar-system

[rabinoz]

would be the lack of a CGI rendering of the complete model, along with a detailed release of all inputs used for creating the model.

Why "would be the lack of a CGI rendering of the complete model, along with a detailed release of all inputs used for creating the model" be "Damning evidence against the heliocentric model"?

Those inputs used for creating the model would need to minimally include Kepler's Laws of planetary motion and Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics and gravity.

• "Kepler's Laws of planetary motion" are not laws that govern the motion of planets. They were only an approximation.
• There is no "Newton's Law of Thermodynamics", so it could not include that. There are Newton's Laws of Motion.
• There is no "Newton's Law of gravity", so it could not include that. The is a Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, not quite the same thing!

Planetary motion, at least to a very good approximation, follows Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.
Einstein's GR does cause the orbits to have slightly more precession than predicted by Newton's laws.
As far as I know, the only planet where the change is above measurement error is Mercury.

Does anyone have such a model, open for inspection?

Probably not, especially as your requirements were incorrect.

Care to start again?

[totallackey]

Here is a simulation that uses NASA data to simulate the solar system. It is all open source and he has a blog describing his methodology, briefly, and his data sources.

http://lab.la-grange.ca/en/building-jsorrery-a-javascript-webgl-solar-system

Will examine it and have some friends examine it.

Thank you.

[Rama Set]

Here is a simulation that uses NASA data to simulate the solar system. It is all open source and he has a blog describing his methodology, briefly, and his data sources.

http://lab.la-grange.ca/en/building-jsorrery-a-javascript-webgl-solar-system

Will examine it and have some friends examine it.

Thank you.

No problem. You will have to follow a few links I think to find everything.

[totallackey]

Willing to be proven wrong, but I don't think it's as unambiguous as you say.

Okay, am I to place you on record as writing something to the equivalent of: "It is not necessary to include the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Laws of planetary motion when rendering a CGI of the Solar System."?

No. What you could do is walk me through whatever gymnastics you just did in your head to go from, “science is not 100% certain” to “we can just throw out Kepler and Newton all together, we don’t need that bullshit.” I get lost between those two statements, help me out.

If that is not what you meant, then that is not what you meant.

That is why I wrote the question.

Granted, I'm not saying it's "unreliable," it just seems to me like you're describing it in terms we could call 100% concrete or 100% certain... which is simply not accurate.

Newton was wrong in his Laws of motion?

Kepler's Laws of planetary motion are wrong?

Once more, with feeling this time. Walk me through how you got from MY words to YOURS. I’m not really seeing the equivalence. Help me see where you’re coming from.

You think you identified "where I am coming from..." ( as if that matters to the OP), as you relate in the following treatise, essentially telling me to "eat shit and die."

Just like in the other thread when you claimed how scientists say they have "all the math" or "all the answers," as I deduced you meant, if you're using the same context here, I can say with 99.999999% "certainty" that you're mistaken... Get it?

I happen to agree that scientists do not know anything when it comes to something they  cannot actually put their hands on, but I am not the one preaching the gospel like NdGT or Bill Nye, nor am I the one stating textbooks are factual.

They are and they behave as if they are gods walking amongst insects.

And the most they generally have to offer, when hard pressed, is a condescending, "Take our word for it," or some other form of BS answer.

That is my opinion on that specific matter.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH that helps.

No, it does not help the OP.

It merely gives you cause to begin your turn in the role of NdGT or Bill Nye as we shall see.

See, it’s pretty obvious you have a massive chip on your shoulder when it comes to scientists and how they engage with the public. I will concede to you that they haven’t always done a good job - Hell, I’ll go further, they done fucked up if THIS is the result we find ourselves with - but you clearly don’t understand that science IS agnostic.

No, science is not agnostic in my opinion.

And your statement is just as subjective as mine and your statement or views about science or scientists will always remain as just as subjective as mine.

I’m sorry. I know you have a charicature in your head of how scientists are and you make certain assumptions about how they do their work, but you’re just wrong.

And you have your caricature in your head... to which I will leave you at peace.

And here, with this statement: "I will concede to you that they haven’t always done a good job...:" you acknowledge my caricature of science and how scientists behave is correct at times.

...with at least I explained how and why a few times now, but rather than address my objections, you ignore them, double down on the previous claim, and then show everyone here the underbelly of your victim complex.

Funny...I do not feel victimized.

Climb down off the cross and stop straw-manning me and the topic of science.

I will, just as soon as you promise to stop playing Freud, stick to the OP, and stop trying to bury this OP behind a wall of text.

As I said in another thread, if you’re going to criticize scientists for how they do science, the least you could do is try to represent both subjects accurately. Anything less shows either a willingness to straw-man your opponent with incomplete, inaccurate representations of their position, or a complete lack of comprehension, or both. Your responses so far make you a strong candidate for the latter, by my reckoning.

POT MEET KETTLE!

Massive wall of additional off-topic rant

Good.

I don’t expect my words alone to unravel your bald-faced bias and willingness to misunderstand or misrepresent the opponent position, but I felt it needed to be pointed out. Everyone has bias, but you’re really not trying to compensate for that, at all, if you’re gonna argue the way you have been.

[/quote]
And as predicted you close with the proverbial, "eat shit and die..."

Thanks.

You have a nice day!

Still does not change my position.

And, if I get the model I asked for examination, that will end the argument.

So, repeating the OP as to not allow the usual tactics utilized by the typical suspects:
Damning evidence against the heliocentric model...
would be the lack of a CGI rendering of the complete model, along with a detailed release of all inputs used for creating the model.

Those inputs used for creating the model would need to minimally include Kepler's Laws of planetary motion and Newton's Laws of motion and gravity.

Does anyone have such a model, open for inspection?

[totallackey]

would be the lack of a CGI rendering of the complete model, along with a detailed release of all inputs used for creating the model.

Why "would be the lack of a CGI rendering of the complete model, along with a detailed release of all inputs used for creating the model" be "Damning evidence against the heliocentric model"?

Those inputs used for creating the model would need to minimally include Kepler's Laws of planetary motion and Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics and gravity.

• "Kepler's Laws of planetary motion" are not laws that govern the motion of planets. They were only an approximation.
• There is no "Newton's Law of Thermodynamics", so it could not include that. There are Newton's Laws of Motion.
• There is no "Newton's Law of gravity", so it could not include that. The is a Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, not quite the same thing!

Planetary motion, at least to a very good approximation, follows Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.
Einstein's GR does cause the orbits to have slightly more precession than predicted by Newton's laws.
As far as I know, the only planet where the change is above measurement error is Mercury.

Does anyone have such a model, open for inspection?

Probably not, especially as your requirements were incorrect.

Care to start again?

Yep.

Except for Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Approximations or not, scientists claim these work.

I revised the OP.

[jayjay]

would be the lack of a CGI rendering of the complete model, along with a detailed release of all inputs used for creating the model.

Those inputs used for creating the model would need to minimally include Kepler's Laws of planetary motion and Newton's Laws of motion and universal gravitation and account for the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Does anyone have such a model, open for inspection?

How is the lack of a CGI model damning evidence of a heliocentric model?

If there are no CGI models, it only proves that nobody has done the work.

If you claim there are no mathematical models, then how would that prove that heliocentric is false, either? Wouldn't it merely mean that it hasn't been proven? Is that what you mean by damning? You are saying there is an x percentage chance that heliocentric is false? If so, then you admit it is mathematically possible that heliocentric is true?

Oh, wait, you also have another option that you don't believe in mathematics (or physics), which, shockingly enough, might actually be possible with you Total Lackey.

If you can talk yourself off the ledge and admit that it is possible that the planets revolve around the sun, then you are being reasonable. If you explicitly believe that it is literally impossible that the planets revolve around the sun, then you are being unreasonable and ignoring a significant amount of science in order to convince yourself that you're right.

[totallackey]

I asked what the purpose of creating such an accurate CGI model would be. You answered 'because'. A project to the accuracy and size you are requesting would cost hundreds, if not thousands of man hours of work to create. Such an endeavor requires funding, getting that funding requires a reason. Simply saying "Because it should exist!" is not a reason for investors to fund the project, nor for most people to wish to make it. The scientific community at large also has no desire to make it to 'prove Kepler/Newton right' because they already have been for as far/much as their laws cover

Am I to take it you are writing on behalf of the entire "agnostic," scientific community when you write that Newton/Kepler have been,"proven right for as far/much as their laws cover."

See, supaluminus is trying to sell me on this idea that science is agnostic and is always open to scrutiny...so forgive me if view this last statement of yours in direct contradiction to his position.

I highly doubt what you're asking for is impossible. I DO however doubt anyone would desire to spend the money/time to create it to the standards you are demanding. Because there's no practical purpose for such a thing.

Forgive me if I take this paragraph or your word as the model having no "practical purpose," as anything more than your opinion.

Also forgive me if I consider it to be more text in an effort to bury the OP.

This is why most will take a shortcut of some kind to reduce the math and effort needed to create something. Like the one from the other thread that assumed circular orbits (most orbits aren't all that far off being circles anyway, Earth for example only has a 0.0167 eccentricity) to reduce calculations needed and make the creation of the model easier.

Okay.

You admit the current models do not reflect Newton/Kepler.

Now, if you do not have anything further to add, please refrain from posting.

I remind everyone of the OP:
"Damning evidence against the heliocentric model...
would be the lack of a CGI rendering of the complete model, along with a detailed release of all inputs used for creating the model.

Those inputs used for creating the model would need to minimally include Kepler's Laws of planetary motion and Newton's Laws of motion and universal gravitation and account for the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Does anyone have such a model, open for inspection?"

If you do not have a model for submission, then please refrain from posting.

[totallackey]

Mid level range of text erected to bury the OP.

This post was made here, in FLAT EARTH GENERAL, so it is not a debate topic.

I am not going to debate my wording, nor am I going to allow the usual tactics utilized by the usual suspects to bury the OP.

Repeating the OP:

"Damning evidence against the heliocentric model...

would be the lack of a CGI rendering of the complete model, along with a detailed release of all inputs used for creating the model.

Those inputs used for creating the model would need to minimally include Kepler's Laws of planetary motion and Newton's Laws of motion and universal gravitation and account for the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Does anyone have such a model, open for inspection?"

If you have a model, please submit it.

If not, then please refrain from posting.

[jayjay]

Lack of CGI is not damning evidence. Your entire basis is factually incorrect.

[totallackey]

Opinion snipped

I am not interested in your opinion.
Repeating the OP:

"Damning evidence against the heliocentric model...

would be the lack of a CGI rendering of the complete model, along with a detailed release of all inputs used for creating the model.

Those inputs used for creating the model would need to minimally include Kepler's Laws of planetary motion and Newton's Laws of motion and universal gravitation and account for the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Does anyone have such a model, open for inspection?"

If you have a model, please submit it.

If not, then please refrain from posting.

[supaluminus]

No. What you could do is walk me through whatever gymnastics you just did in your head to go from, “science is not 100% certain” to “we can just throw out Kepler and Newton all together, we don’t need that bullshit.” I get lost between those two statements, help me out.

If that is not what you meant, then that is not what you meant.

That is why I wrote the question.

You wrote the question with either a circumstantial misunderstanding of what I meant or a willful misunderstanding of what I meant. I'm trying to figure out which. Did you just not understand what I meant, or were you trying to twist my words in order to straw-man?

Again, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but even if your question doesn't fully explain your intentions, what it does tell me is that you don't understand what I'm talking about... and conversely, what you're talking about.

Once more, with feeling this time. Walk me through how you got from MY words to YOURS. I’m not really seeing the equivalence. Help me see where you’re coming from.

You think you identified "where I am coming from..." ( as if that matters to the OP), as you relate in the following treatise, essentially telling me to "eat shit and die."

Again, please, climb down from the cross. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm telling you you're mistaken because of what you are saying not because of who you are as a person.

Remember that piece I put in spoiler text? I was trying to be real with you, dude. I'm not here to disparage or berate you, but I don't know what you want me to do; I'm trying to tell you that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Like Ricky Gervais to Karl Pilkington, "DON'T TALK SHIT."

I don't know how exactly you expect anyone to convey that to you, honestly, in a way that doesn't make you feel like you're being told to "eat shit and die," but maybe you should try and develop some emotional maturity and get over yourself, if that's how you take criticism.

I really don't give a Darwinian monkey's uncle about you or your personal life, I'm really just concerned about the amount of ignorant shit spewing out of your mouth like a blown spigot running out of Shit's Creek. I'm not telling you to eat shit and die, lackey, that would just make a bad situation worse. Rather, I'm trying to help you clean up what's already there. I'm concerned about your mental hygiene.

Stop making this about you and me, and me telling you to "eat shit and die."

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH that helps.

No, it does not help the OP.

It merely gives you cause to begin your turn in the role of NdGT or Bill Nye as we shall see.

I'm flattered you think I begin to compare to them, but yes, it does help. It helps me and anyone else reading understand where you're coming from, which explains the willingness to ignore sound reasoning, appeal to a lack of contrary evidence, put forward circular arguments, and straw-man your opponent.

You aren't here to teach and be taught, you're here to dig in your heels and fight stubbornly until you retreat from the thread, or we do. At this point, I think I can say conclusively that this is a complete waste of everyone's time.

But still, I'ma humor you, because I don't want to believe that this is a waste of everyone's time. I want to believe that you're not as stubborn and unwilling to see reason as you seem... but even I can't deny what's in front of me, after enough squinting and peering and careful scrutinizing.

See, it’s pretty obvious you have a massive chip on your shoulder when it comes to scientists and how they engage with the public. I will concede to you that they haven’t always done a good job - Hell, I’ll go further, they done fucked up if THIS is the result we find ourselves with - but you clearly don’t understand that science IS agnostic.

No, science is not agnostic in my opinion.

And your statement is just as subjective as mine and your statement or views about science or scientists will always remain as just as subjective as mine.

Yeah, opinions are like assholes. Some are shittier than others.

And you've done everything you can to demonstrate that your opinion of science and scientists is based on more spectacle than substance.

Your confusion regarding the meaning and difference between scientific law and theory, your confusion regarding the difference between "uncertainty" and "LOL THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING!!1!11" and just your patent unwillingness to see how you're wrong shows your bald-faced ignorance and shit-talking nonsense for what it is.

But hey, we haven't found that darn "textbook" model yet, so there's still something for you to cling to for dear life.

I’m sorry. I know you have a charicature in your head of how scientists are and you make certain assumptions about how they do their work, but you’re just wrong.

And you have your caricature in your head... to which I will leave you at peace.

opinions ≈ assholes

And here, with this statement: "I will concede to you that they haven’t always done a good job...:" you acknowledge my caricature of science and how scientists behave is correct at times.

You really don't understand what it means to misrepresent, over-simplify, and/or straw-man your opponent's position, do you? I mean, like I said, I wanna believe it's just ignorance, but that's because I can't tell if you're doing this intentionally or not.

Either way, lemme break it down for you:

The "haven't always" part is what you're glossing over. Just because I acknowledge that scientists can make mistakes doesn't mean I'm agreeing with your characterization, which goes much further than mine.

False equivalency. Stop this squirming around and just have an honest dialog with me, for fuck's sake.

...with at least I explained how and why a few times now, but rather than address my objections, you ignore them, double down on the previous claim, and then show everyone here the underbelly of your victim complex.

Funny...I do not feel victimized.

Funny, you're sure behaving like one.

"Eat shit and die?" Jesus Christ, lackey, did I hurt your feelings? I'm really not trying to. Grow up. Again, I defer to what I said before about sugarcoating it. idk wtf you want me to say or how you want me to say it, but either way, climb down off your fucking cross and try to have a productive conversation for once.

Climb down off the cross and stop straw-manning me and the topic of science.

I will, just as soon as you promise to stop playing Freud, stick to the OP, and stop trying to bury this OP behind a wall of text.

I wouldn't have to "play Freud" if you weren't making such a fucking mess of this discussion with your constant fallacious false equivalencies, straw-men, begging the question, appeals to ignorance, and a HOST of other shit we've already talked about.

I can't have an honest conversation with you unless you agree to converse honestly. How the fuck are we supposed to talk about the OP at all when every other reply from you attempts to rephrase and simplify your opponent's words into a shape you can more easily dismiss? You aren't even replying to the same words at that event, so don't talk to me about "sticking to the OP." Stick to some intellectual honesty.

As I said in another thread, if you’re going to criticize scientists for how they do science, the least you could do is try to represent both subjects accurately. Anything less shows either a willingness to straw-man your opponent with incomplete, inaccurate representations of their position, or a complete lack of comprehension, or both. Your responses so far make you a strong candidate for the latter, by my reckoning.

POT MEET KETTLE!

Hi. Please point out where I misrepresented you, and I'll happily retract my words.

Otherwise you're talking shit, again.

[totallackey]

Edited for brevity.

Again, I am done debating my wording, my choice of words, or my views on the current state of the scientific community at large. These are not part of the OP and this topic was not posted in the DEBATE section.

Any of you have a problem with this stance or the purpose of this particular forum, please write a moderator.

"Damning evidence against the heliocentric model...

would be the lack of a CGI rendering of the complete model, along with a detailed release of all inputs used for creating the model.

Those inputs used for creating the model would need to minimally include Kepler's Laws of planetary motion and Newton's Laws of motion and universal gravitation and account for the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Does anyone have such a model, open for inspection?"

If you have a model, please submit it.

If not, then please refrain from posting.