[totallackey]

Upon first glance it looks like the planets adopt a vortex model to me.

Which would mean it is not using Newtonian mechanics.

Verify for yourself.

Maybe do more than just take a glance.

I did.

It is not accurate and simply renders planetary movement as a vortex.

Further, even if we were able to find an animation that met your demands, how would you check its accuracy?

I have friends.

How about you?

Was this really necessary? It was a valid and neutrally-phrased question.

And I thought my reply was also, but ll of this type of discussion is really off topic and I will no longer entertain it.

StinkyOne, if you were offended, I am sorry.

Back to the subject at hand.

[totallackey]

I have friends.

How about you?

Given the timeline you've already provided, you are at least in your 50s. You should attempt to act like it. Sadly, you seem content to be a troll. It already got you banned once. I have a feeling it will happen again.

You asked a question.

I provided an answer.

Whether or not I receive a ban(s) is non-topical.

Let us please return to the topic.

Thank you.

Care to self-analyze describe what prompted you to even respond to something you find to be complete nonsense?

I'm trying to help you understand the ridiculous nature of your request. It's like if I asked you for a REAL photo or video of the flat Earth with an ice wall around it. Not gonna happen. You put a bunch of demands on something that you couldn't verify even if someone did produce a video. What is the point?

I am capable of using resources to get them verified.

That is point.

[totallackey]

I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the heliocentric model (depicting the complete revolutionary movement of the Sun as it travels throughout the Milky Way) to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie; or,

2) Newton is wrong; or,

3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.

The answer is 2) Newton is wrong.

There are anomalies in Mercury orbit that can't fit into Newton's laws.
That's where Einstein's General Realtivity is more accurate.

If you use reference frame tied to Milky way we aren't sure how accurate our formulas could be.
But if you use reference frame tied to Sun and limit scope to Solar system, then Einstein is good.
They say for reference frame tied to Earth with local scope (satellites and orbital vehicles), Newton is good enough.

So, if I am to understand your post, math is truth (2+2 = 4) depending on what side of the street I am on, and whether or not it is Tuesday or Wednesday?

[Rama Set]

Because Newtonian mechanics states without equivocation orbits are ellipses. And if Universal Sandbox was indeed using Newtonian mechanics the orbits would ellipses or "helical," not a vortex or a helix.

You really, truly have no idea how geometry works, at least in 3 dimensions.  A helix is what you end with if the point that is tracing the perimeter of the ellipse along a plane in the x and y axis carries a vector in the z axis with respect to t.

But the orbits rendered in your submitted model are vortex.

They are helixes, you just don't understand what you are looking at.

The motion of the planets around the sun is not attributed to Newton, it is described to a good degree of accuracy by equations developed by Newton and Kepler.

What is “textbook motion” anyway?

Regardless, the heliocentric solar system has been accurately modeled in digital renderings with open code and a model of the galaxy is in progress, but due to size constraints, it isn’t accurate enough to include our specific solar system yet, as far as I know.

An admission he never did submit a model...

WTH RamaSet!?

I did submit a model of the heliocentric solar system with all the data you asked for.

So, if I am to understand your post, math is truth (2+2 = 4) depending on what side of the street I am on, and whether or not it is Tuesday or Wednesday?

You do not understand his post.  Apparently you struggle with the difference between math and science, as well.

[Macarios]

Because Newtonian mechanics states without equivocation orbits are ellipses. And if Universal Sandbox was indeed using Newtonian mechanics the orbits would ellipses or "helical," not a vortex or a helix.

But the orbits rendered in your submitted model are vortex.

The understanding here can be reached by understanding "local frame of reference".

Sun and orbiting planets don't revolve separately around galaxy core.

Look at Earth and Moon.
They are not orbiting Sun separately, but as a system.
Within the system Moon is still following its elliptic orbit relative to Earth.

Jupiter with all its moons also makes system that revolves around Sun as a whole.
During that movement every Jupiter's moon follows own elliptical orbit relative to Jupiter.

Same goes for all planets and other objects orbiting the Sun.

Solar system orbits galactic core as a whole.
Paths of planets of Solar system are helicoidal relative to galactic core, but elliptical relative to the Sun.
Just like each planet moons have spiral paths relative to the Sun but elliptical relative to own planets.

Example of Sun-Earth system:
Within Solar system reference frame Earth orbits Sun on elliptical path.
But relative to galactic reference frame they both additionally have velocity component of orbiting galactic core.

That component is equal for both, Sun and Earth, and doesn't influence their local interaction.

Our present knowledge about Universe couldn't be developed while religious Dogma was active.
If revolution around galaxy core takes 225 million years, and our heliocentric observations last 400 years,
then during the whole observation period Solar system traveled (360/225 million)*400 = 0.00064 degrees on own orbit.

It is 2.3 arcseconds for entire 400 years, or 0.00575 arcseconds per year (1.597E-6 degrees).
Error of 0.000001597 degrees is 1.6 ppm (parts per million) yearly, or 365 times smaller than that daily, which is 4.38 ppb (parts per billion).

Not enough to be measured during formulation of Kepler's laws.
Too close to straight line.
During our routine calculations within inner part of Solar system it sounds pretty tollerable to me.

I don't know if, for the probe New Horizons sent to Pluto, they took the correction into calculation.

[Macarios]

You really, truly have no idea how geometry works, at least in 3 dimensions.

...

They are helixes, you just don't understand what you are looking at.

...

You do not understand his post.  Apparently you struggle with the difference between math and science, as well.

I don't know if totallackey truely doesn't understand, or just doesn't have detailed enough picture of measures and scales.
But in both cases most of the time it is counterproductive to just point out "you don't understand this-or-that".

If you think he doesn't understand, try explaining it using understandable language.
Teaching (and "teaching", for that matter) requires great self-discilpine and is much harder than one could think.

[Rama Set]

I don't know if totallackey truely doesn't understand, or just doesn't have detailed enough picture of measures and scales.
But in both cases most of the time it is counterproductive to just point out "you don't understand this-or-that".

If you think he doesn't understand, try explaining it using understandable language.
Teaching (and "teaching", for that matter) requires great self-discilpine and is much harder than one could think.

I don't plan on engaging in this thread again because I find Total Lackey's posts to be in bad faith almost without exception.  When he isn't posting in bad faith he misunderstands the subject matter to such an astonishing degree that I find the whole enterprise to be a waste.  Best of luck to you.

[totallackey]

You really, truly have no idea how geometry works, at least in 3 dimensions.  A helix is what you end with if the point that is tracing the perimeter of the ellipse along a plane in the x and y axis carries a vector in the z axis with respect to t.

Simple.

Describe the difference between the orbits depicted on Universal Sandbox and the model I presented.

They are helixes, you just don't understand what you are looking at.

Okay, even the model I presented is, according to the debunking source, rendering helixes.

The motion of the planets around the sun is not attributed to Newton, it is described to a good degree of accuracy by equations developed by Newton and Kepler.

What is “textbook motion” anyway?

Ellipses.

I did submit a model of the heliocentric solar system with all the data you asked for.

And I ask again, for the 2nd time.

Please refresh my memory or provide a link to that model or to the post where you made the submission.

So, if I am to understand your post, math is truth (2+2 = 4) depending on what side of the street I am on, and whether or not it is Tuesday or Wednesday?

You do not understand his post.  Apparently you struggle with the difference between math and science, as well.

What is wrong with asking for some clarity?

You did notice I asked a question, correct?

[Macarios]

I don't plan on engaging in this thread again because I find Total Lackey's posts to be in bad faith almost without exception.  When he isn't posting in bad faith he misunderstands the subject matter to such an astonishing degree that I find the whole enterprise to be a waste.  Best of luck to you.

I'm sorry if I upset you.
It is not my intention to upset anyone here, except few occasional cases of teasing when I find useful for specific kind of intellectual stimulation.

I know it is hard.
I make many mistakes myself.

Some Flat Earthers developed "agressive" approach as pure desire to win, to force people into belief instead of knowledge.
But others developed "semi-agressive" approach as reaction to all ridicule-instead-of-help, and all laughs-instead-of-understanding.

In court lawyers compete.
But this is not court.
In science people cooperate.

[douglips]

Keplerian elliptical orbits apply to two bodies. If you restrict yourself to the sun & a planet, or even the sun and all planets, it's a very good model, but then you are sitting on the sun (in some magical protective bubble) watching the planets go around.

If you want to introduce the galactic center, you can't continue to expect ellipses. The ellipses are still there, they are just stretched over space in some other direction, making a helix.

What you are saying is like this:
- Juggling one ball is just throwing it straight up and down.
- When I'm juggling in a bus travelling down the freeway, the path of the ball isn't straight up and down - it's a parabola!
- Therefore juggling doesn't exist.

You can have an observer in the bus watching the ball go straight up and down, or an observer on the side of the road watching the ball go in parabolas. Just like this, you can have an observer coasting along next to the sun observing ellipses, and an observer stationary with respect to the galaxy watching the sun go by with planets tracing helixes.

It's the same motion, just observed from a different frame.

[nickrulercreator]

I commented this in the last thread started by you, but I was ignored. Here it is again. Check out Celestia. It has a model of the solar system and stars nearest to us:

https://celestia.space/

[totallackey]

I don't plan on engaging in this thread again because I find Total Lackey's posts to be in bad faith almost without exception.

I asked you two times to clarify when and where you offered a model.

Your reply? = "I have offered you a model."

Who is acting in bad faith?

When he isn't posting in bad faith he misunderstands the subject matter to such an astonishing degree that I find the whole enterprise to be a waste.  Best of luck to you.

You will pardon me if I find your assertion baseless and without merit.

Regardless, resting on the firm belief all people ultimately get exactly what they deserve, I bid you good riddance in the hope you will stick to your word.

I don't plan on engaging in this thread again

[Macarios]

So, if I am to understand your post, math is truth (2+2 = 4) depending on what side of the street I am on, and whether or not it is Tuesday or Wednesday?

Math is tool and gives truth when you know how to use it.

Sit on a bench in park and whirl your keys in front of you, you will see them making circle, observer from outside the bench will see them making circle.
Sit on platform sliding on rails and whirl keys in front of you, you will see them making circle again, observer from outside the platform will see them making spiral.

You will calculate circle from your point of view.
Observer from outside the platform will calculate spiral.
In one full rotation on such circle there's less traveling distance than is one full rotation in such spiral.
Faster you go, difference is bigger.

Traveling distance depends on frame of reference, and in both frames is truth within the frame.

For cosmic travels we plan ballistic trajectories because we can't carry enough fuel to correct directions on the run.
To plan interplanetary trajectory within solar system we need frame tied to Sun.
To plan interstellar trajectory within the galaxy, we need frame tied to galactic core.

[totallackey]

...Not in a way that I understand.

the way I am viewing the universe sandbox model is incorrect and inaccurate is due to my understanding of this article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html
Please read the article and let me know if you arrive at the same conclusion.

[totallackey]

So, if I am to understand your post, math is truth (2+2 = 4) depending on what side of the street I am on, and whether or not it is Tuesday or Wednesday?

Math is tool and gives truth when you know how to use it.

Sit on a bench in park and whirl your keys in front of you, you will see them making circle, observer from outside the bench will see them making circle.
Sit on platform sliding on rails and whirl keys in front of you, you will see them making circle again, observer from outside the platform will see them making spiral.

You will calculate circle from your point of view.
Observer from outside the platform will calculate spiral.
In one full rotation on such circle there's less traveling distance than is one full rotation in such spiral.
Faster you go, difference is bigger.

Traveling distance depends on frame of reference, and in both frames is truth within the frame.

For cosmic travels we plan ballistic trajectories because we can't carry enough fuel to correct directions on the run.
To plan interplanetary trajectory within solar system we need frame tied to Sun.
To plan interstellar trajectory within the galaxy, we need frame tied to galactic core.

So, if I am to understand your contribution...

I want the model to equal 4 in its rendering of the image.

If within the system on my own ride, I utilize Newton/Kepler only to arrive at a rendering.

If on a outside viewing platform, I use only Einstein and GR.

Under no circumstances, use Newton by himself.

[Macarios]

So, if I am to understand your post, math is truth (2+2 = 4) depending on what side of the street I am on, and whether or not it is Tuesday or Wednesday?

Math is tool and gives truth when you know how to use it.

Sit on a bench in park and whirl your keys in front of you, you will see them making circle, observer from outside the bench will see them making circle.
Sit on platform sliding on rails and whirl keys in front of you, you will see them making circle again, observer from outside the platform will see them making spiral.

You will calculate circle from your point of view.
Observer from outside the platform will calculate spiral.
In one full rotation on such circle there's less traveling distance than is one full rotation in such spiral.
Faster you go, difference is bigger.

Traveling distance depends on frame of reference, and in both frames is truth within the frame.

For cosmic travels we plan ballistic trajectories because we can't carry enough fuel to correct directions on the run.
To plan interplanetary trajectory within solar system we need frame tied to Sun.
To plan interstellar trajectory within the galaxy, we need frame tied to galactic core.

So, if I am to understand your contribution...

I want the model to equal 4 in its rendering of the image.

If within the system on my own ride, I utilize Newton/Kepler only to arrive at a rendering.

If on a outside viewing platform, I use only Einstein and GR.

Under no circumstances, use Newton by himself.

It depends on desired degree of accuracy.

[totallackey]

I commented this in the last thread started by you, but I was ignored. Here it is again. Check out Celestia. It has a model of the solar system and stars nearest to us:

https://celestia.space/

Thank you.

I am not sure (and cannot examine the model at this current time) but does celestia actually provide a rendering of the solar system in motion?

[douglips]

...Not in a way that I understand.

the way I am viewing the universe sandbox model is incorrect and inaccurate is due to my understanding of this article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html
Please read the article and let me know if you arrive at the same conclusion.

Ok, I think I understand you now- yes, that particular universe sandbox video has a similar problem to the “vortex” video that I hadn’t understood on first viewing. But now that I know Universe Sandbox exists maybe I or you can build one that is accurate. I believe the ecliptic is tilted about 60 degrees to the galactic motion vector, but I will check the details before attempting to build a model.

An accurate one would show helical motion, and that is allowed by Newtonian mechanics.