[Curious Squirrel]

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.

Seeing as you've presented zero practical purpose for such a model to exist other than your opinion that it can't because reasons... Anyway, it's clear you're letting your own biases get in the way here, and are creating straw men instead of actually attempting to discuss anything. You have fun with your faulty premise here.

[totallackey]

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.

Thank you for your support Curious!

I appreciate it!

[douglips]

https://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/

Source:
https://github.com/mgvez/jsorrery/blob/master/src/algorithm/Gravity.js
- uses Newton's law of gravitation

[rabinoz]

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

Your evidence for that claim, Mr Totallackey!
Any astronomer or cosmologist worth his salt knows that Kepler’s laws are only an approximation. I am neither and I know that!

Astronomy, KEPLER’S LAW
Kepler’s laws have an important place in the history of astronomy, cosmology, and science in general. They marked a key step in the revolution which moved the center of the universe from the Earth (geocentric cosmology) to the Sun (heliocentric), and they laid the foundation for the unification of heaven and earth, by Newton, a century later (before Newton the rules, or laws, which governed celestial phenomena were widely believed to be disconnected with those controlling things which happened on Earth; Newton showed – with his universal law of gravitation – that the same law rules both heaven and earth).

Although Kepler’s laws are only an approximation – they are exact, in classical physics, only for a planetary system of just one planet (and then the focus is the baricenter, not the Sun) – for systems in which one object dominates, mass-wise, they are a good approximation.

See rest at: Universe Today, Kepler's Laws

Like to try again?
You do seem to be ignoring those wise words from Mark Twain.
One who shall forever remain nameless said you were "the flat Earth version of an angry noob"! Keep it up.

[totallackey]

https://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/

Source:
https://github.com/mgvez/jsorrery/blob/master/src/algorithm/Gravity.js
- uses Newton's law of gravitation

Thanks for the submission.

I increased the animation speed to the maximum amount available and it failed to show the Sun either rotating or in revolutionary movement (as far as I can tell).

[totallackey]

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

Your evidence for that claim, Mr Totallackey!
Any astronomer or cosmologist worth his salt knows that Kepler’s laws are only an approximation. I am neither and I know that!

Astronomy, KEPLER’S LAW
Kepler’s laws have an important place in the history of astronomy, cosmology, and science in general. They marked a key step in the revolution which moved the center of the universe from the Earth (geocentric cosmology) to the Sun (heliocentric), and they laid the foundation for the unification of heaven and earth, by Newton, a century later (before Newton the rules, or laws, which governed celestial phenomena were widely believed to be disconnected with those controlling things which happened on Earth; Newton showed – with his universal law of gravitation – that the same law rules both heaven and earth).

Although Kepler’s laws are only an approximation – they are exact, in classical physics, only for a planetary system of just one planet (and then the focus is the baricenter, not the Sun) – for systems in which one object dominates, mass-wise, they are a good approximation.

See rest at: Universe Today, Kepler's Laws

Like to try again?
You do seem to be ignoring those wise words from Mark Twain.
One who shall forever remain nameless said you were "the flat Earth version of an angry noob"! Keep it up.

No, I do not want to try again.

Kepler's Laws are exact, as your source states.

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

[AATW]

Why do you think this is "damning evidence", even though plenty of models exists, when there is no model or even agreed map of a flat earth which even begins to match observations.
Is that not "damning evidence" against a flat earth?

[totallackey]

I will start my own topics.

That is wonderful!

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

[rabinoz]

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

Your evidence for that claim, Mr Totallackey!
Any astronomer or cosmologist worth his salt knows that Kepler’s laws are only an approximation. I am neither and I know that!

Astronomy, KEPLER’S LAW
Kepler’s laws have an important place in the history of astronomy, cosmology, and science in general. They marked a key step in the revolution which moved the center of the universe from the Earth (geocentric cosmology) to the Sun (heliocentric), and they laid the foundation for the unification of heaven and earth, by Newton, a century later (before Newton the rules, or laws, which governed celestial phenomena were widely believed to be disconnected with those controlling things which happened on Earth; Newton showed – with his universal law of gravitation – that the same law rules both heaven and earth).

Although Kepler’s laws are only an approximation – they are exact, in classical physics, only for a planetary system of just one planet (and then the focus is the baricenter, not the Sun) – for systems in which one object dominates, mass-wise, they are a good approximation.

See rest at: Universe Today, Kepler's Laws

Like to try again?
You do seem to be ignoring those wise words from Mark Twain.
One who shall forever remain nameless said you were "the flat Earth version of an angry noob"! Keep it up.

No, I do not want to try again.

Kepler's Laws are exact, as your source states.

Incorrect!
Looks like among your many other failings you've forgotten how to read.
What do you think this means?

Although Kepler’s laws are only an approximation – they are exact, in classical physics, only for a planetary system of just one planet (and then the focus is the baricenter, not the Sun) – for systems in which one object dominates, mass-wise, they are a good approximation.

Kepler's Laws "are exact . . . . . . . only for a planetary system of just one planet".
At last count the solar system had 8 planets, 5 named dwarf planets, probable 100 more dwarf planets, an uncountable number of asteroids, hundreds of thousands objects in the Kuiper Belt and periodic and random comets -  that's a few more than one planet !

So, for an accurate simulation of the whole solar system Kepler's Laws are not exact, just an approximation.
For example, the orbits of Neptune and Pluto do not obey Kepler's Laws. You could say that Neptune and Pluto "play leap-frog".

Also, you might find an accurate implementation of this simulation would need an awesome amount of computing power and all for nothing.

Care to restate your requirements. Kepler's laws are totally unnecessary as Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation covers them and more.

[totallackey]

Edited for brevity.

Nope.

Gonna maintain the current OP.

The model will need to start somewhere with just one orbit of one planet and it will also need to have Kepler in relation to the Earth/Moon system.

So, in keeping with the Kepler requirement, we can see how the model is further compiled, now adding Newton.

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

[supaluminus]

Edited for brevity.

Nope.

Gonna maintain the current OP.

The model will need to start somewhere with just one orbit of one planet and it will also need to have Kepler in relation to the Earth/Moon system.

So, in keeping with the Kepler requirement, we can see how the model is further compiled, now adding Newton.

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

No offense, but you've been moving the goal post every time someone posts a model.

You make objections like, "it's not exact," when the fact is that the math has never been exact, only an approximation.

Even if that approximation is accurate to .00000000-whatever nth of a percent, it's still TECHNICALLY an approximation, despite having such a small deviation. A small deviation like that means we have a high level of "CONFIDENCE" in how accurate this approximation is. That's a statistics term, "confidence," that I'm sure you remember from community college (that's not a dig, I did two years of local community college for my AA).

You ever drive a car or step on an airplane? The odds of you stepping out of either vehicle alive are WAY WORSE than the confidence we have in these approximations, but I don't see you advocating against the Department of Transportation the way you do NASA.

Please define your terms before you send people on another wild goose chase.

[Curious Squirrel]

Edited for brevity.

Nope.

Gonna maintain the current OP.

The model will need to start somewhere with just one orbit of one planet and it will also need to have Kepler in relation to the Earth/Moon system.

So, in keeping with the Kepler requirement, we can see how the model is further compiled, now adding Newton.

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

No offense, but you've been moving the goal post every time someone posts a model.

You make objections like, "it's not exact," when the fact is that the math has never been exact, only an approximation.

Even if that approximation is accurate to .00000000-whatever nth of a percent, it's still TECHNICALLY an approximation, despite having such a small deviation. A small deviation like that means we have a high level of "CONFIDENCE" in how accurate this approximation is. That's a statistics term, "confidence," that I'm sure you remember from community college (that's not a dig, I did two years of local community college for my AA).

You ever drive a car or step on an airplane? The odds of you stepping out of either vehicle alive are WAY WORSE than the confidence we have in these approximations, but I don't see you advocating against the Department of Transportation the way you do NASA.

Please define your terms before you send people on another wild goose chase.

From what I can tell, this is what he's looking for.

1. Must show full solar system to full accuracy. Slightly oval orbits, spinning sun, spinning planets, spinning moons. The whole shebang.
2. Must show solar system movement within Milky Way galaxy. In relation to other systems, movement of spiral, etc.
3. Must explicitly call out both Newton and Kepler as being sources for equations being used in the creation of said model.
4. Must provide full math for how the model was created.
5. Source can be anyone.

If you can vet this list I'm sure it would be appreciated/helpful for others, regardless of my personal feelings on how improbable the existence of such a rendering is.

[totallackey]

Edited for brevity.

Nope.

Gonna maintain the current OP.

The model will need to start somewhere with just one orbit of one planet and it will also need to have Kepler in relation to the Earth/Moon system.

So, in keeping with the Kepler requirement, we can see how the model is further compiled, now adding Newton.

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

Thank you for repeating my OP.

I appreciate you remaining on subject.

[totallackey]

Edited for brevity.

Nope.

Gonna maintain the current OP.

The model will need to start somewhere with just one orbit of one planet and it will also need to have Kepler in relation to the Earth/Moon system.

So, in keeping with the Kepler requirement, we can see how the model is further compiled, now adding Newton.

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

No offense, but you've been moving the goal post every time someone posts a model.

You make objections like, "it's not exact," when the fact is that the math has never been exact, only an approximation.

Even if that approximation is accurate to .00000000-whatever nth of a percent, it's still TECHNICALLY an approximation, despite having such a small deviation. A small deviation like that means we have a high level of "CONFIDENCE" in how accurate this approximation is. That's a statistics term, "confidence," that I'm sure you remember from community college (that's not a dig, I did two years of local community college for my AA).

You ever drive a car or step on an airplane? The odds of you stepping out of either vehicle alive are WAY WORSE than the confidence we have in these approximations, but I don't see you advocating against the Department of Transportation the way you do NASA.

Please define your terms before you send people on another wild goose chase.

From what I can tell, this is what he's looking for.

1. Must show full solar system to full accuracy. Slightly oval orbits, Revolvingand spinning sun, spinning and revolving planets, spinning and revolving moons. The whole shebang.
2. Must show solar system movement within Milky Way galaxy. In relation to other systems, movement of spiral, etc.
3. Must explicitly call out both Newton and Kepler as being sources for equations being used in the creation of said model.
4. Must provide full math for how the model was created.
5. Source can be anyone.

If you can vet this list I'm sure it would be appreciated/helpful for others, regardless of my personal feelings on how improbable the existence of such a rendering is.

Seems complete to me.

[douglips]

https://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/

Source:
https://github.com/mgvez/jsorrery/blob/master/src/algorithm/Gravity.js
- uses Newton's law of gravitation

Thanks for the submission.

I increased the animation speed to the maximum amount available and it failed to show the Sun either rotating or in revolutionary movement (as far as I can tell).

Heliocentric, the word in the title of this thread, means sun-centered.

Did you mean something else? It sounds like you want a model of the entire galaxy. Why would anyone build such a model other than to satisfy you?

[douglips]

From what I can tell, this is what he's looking for.

1. Must show full solar system to full accuracy. Slightly oval orbits, spinning sun, spinning planets, spinning moons. The whole shebang.
2. Must show solar system movement within Milky Way galaxy. In relation to other systems, movement of spiral, etc.
3. Must explicitly call out both Newton and Kepler as being sources for equations being used in the creation of said model.
4. Must provide full math for how the model was created.
5. Source can be anyone.

If you can vet this list I'm sure it would be appreciated/helpful for others, regardless of my personal feelings on how improbable the existence of such a rendering is.

2. Given that we are still working on a map of the galaxy, it's not clear to me how to have a model.
https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/charting-the-milky-way-from-the-inside-out

So you have two competing world views:
- Round earth, with accurate maps of the earth, accurate models of the solar system, and not yet an accurate map of the galaxy.
- Flat earth, with no accurate maps of the earth, crazy "shadow object" ideas and no model of the solar system, and galaxies don't exist.

I find it interesting that if Round Earth fails to predict the exact trajectory of a flea jumping off a gnat's butt on Europa you jump all over it, but it doesn't bother you that flat earth theory can't even help you figure out how people can fly from Johannesburg to Sydney non-stop. Which they do, every day.

[Rama Set]

Yep.

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

I revised the OP.

Out of curiosity, are you aware the Kepler's laws were used to predict the existence and location of Neptune and the prediction of the location was accurate to within one degree in the sky?

[supaluminus]

Yep.

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

I revised the OP.

Out of curiosity, are you aware the Kepler's laws were used to predict the existence and location of Neptune and the prediction of the location was accurate to within one degree in the sky?

"Impossible.

By supe's own admission, science is not 100% exact. It is inherently 'uncertain.' Therefore no such prediction could have been successful."

This is what you have been saying, in so many words, over and over again, lackey. Please tell me that you understand A ) that this is the position you have been toting, and B ) that there is something inherently unreasonable about said position.

If you really think this is a straw man of your position, show me how, and I will admit fault and concede a more accurate representation of your position. If no such demonstration can be made, you need to check your logical maths and try again.

[totallackey]

https://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/

Source:
https://github.com/mgvez/jsorrery/blob/master/src/algorithm/Gravity.js
- uses Newton's law of gravitation

Thanks for the submission.

I increased the animation speed to the maximum amount available and it failed to show the Sun either rotating or in revolutionary movement (as far as I can tell).

Heliocentric, the word in the title of this thread, means sun-centered.

Did you mean something else? It sounds like you want a model of the entire galaxy. Why would anyone build such a model other than to satisfy you?

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

[totallackey]

From what I can tell, this is what he's looking for.

1. Must show full solar system to full accuracy. Slightly oval orbits, spinning sun, spinning planets, spinning moons. The whole shebang.
2. Must show solar system movement within Milky Way galaxy. In relation to other systems, movement of spiral, etc.
3. Must explicitly call out both Newton and Kepler as being sources for equations being used in the creation of said model.
4. Must provide full math for how the model was created.
5. Source can be anyone.

If you can vet this list I'm sure it would be appreciated/helpful for others, regardless of my personal feelings on how improbable the existence of such a rendering is.

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

Thanks for repeating the OP and assisting!

I appreciate it!