[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.

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?

[AATW]

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

Just to say. You're on pretty shaky ground here, champ, when FE doesn't even have an agreed map, let alone model of the solar system which works on any level.

Why do you call it the solar system anyway? If it's just the earth in a dome then the sun is just one of the things circling above us.

[totallackey]

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

Complete as in complete.

Pick up a science textbook and they will have a description of the Solar System. That description will include the current location in the Milky Way, path of travel in the Milky Way, rate of travel in the Milky Way, etc...

Just to say. You're on pretty shaky ground here, champ, when FE doesn't even have an agreed map, let alone model of the solar system which works on any level.

Why would FE make a model of the Solar System?

That would be the purview of helio-centrists.

I am unaware of a person supporting FE who subsribes to helio-centricity.

Since when is there an agreed upon map among RE-tards?

Why do you call it the solar system anyway? If it's just the earth in a dome then the sun is just one of the things circling above us.

So you would know to what it is that I am referencing.

[xenotolerance]

For a computer model of the solar system, see solarsystemscope.com. This can run on a phone.

When you start looking into movement through the Milky Way, and you want modeling of, say, how this would change the visible night sky or orbits of visible objects, you need a computer model of the galaxy. This will run on a supercomputer.

Paper is linked here. They simulated the formation of the Milky Way to test their model w.r.t. getting an accurate number of neighboring dwarf galaxies in the simulation, with a long-term goal of mapping the whole galaxy. Click around in there to find a link to the code library they used and the rest of the methodology.

And, I'm out

[douglips]

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.

Before computers existed such a model would have been impossible, right?

Such models exist now, to certain levels of detail. If no model was possible before computers, and now some models exist but are incomplete due to computation limits, then all you are doing is painting yourself into a corner. As better models are made you will continually lose ground.

So, tell us what's wrong with the models linked here, and what the equivalent flat Earth model is. Where are your computer simulations?

[Rounder]

Before computers existed such a model would have been impossible, right?

Before that, the models were clockwork devices called orrery.  For example, from 1568:

[totallackey]

For a computer model of the solar system, see solarsystemscope.com. This can run on a phone.

Yeah, it could run in the Olympics too, but what difference does that make if there are no references to Kepler and Newton formulas in its formation.

Plus, planet revolutionary renderings appear to be circles.

When you start looking into movement through the Milky Way, and you want modeling of, say, how this would change the visible night sky or orbits of visible objects, you need a computer model of the galaxy. This will run on a supercomputer.

Fine, it will run on a supercomputer.

Again, it could run in the Olympics also, but were the trainers Kepler and Newton?

Paper is linked here. They simulated the formation of the Milky Way to test their model w.r.t. getting an accurate number of neighboring dwarf galaxies in the simulation, with a long-term goal of mapping the whole galaxy. Click around in there to find a link to the code library they used and the rest of the methodology.

Nothing on Kepler or Newton found.

Not even a CGI representation found.

And, I'm out

Were you ever here, for all the use your links were?

[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.

Before computers existed such a model would have been impossible, right?

Who cares?

What is the OP asking for?

Such models exist now, to certain levels of detail.

Who cares?

What is the OP asking for?

If no model was possible before computers, and now some models exist but are incomplete due to computation limits...

Computation limits?

I cannot believe you wrote these two words..."computation limits" my ass.

Kepler and Newton equations and formulas for how things move in the Solar System was done with paper and pencil from the beginning...

Try thinking things through before you post.

...is painting yourself into a corner. As better models are made you will continually lose ground.

The be all/end all model can be made right now.

Why is it not?

So, tell us what's wrong with the models linked here, and what the equivalent flat Earth model is. Where are your computer simulations?

Do you see any reference to Kepler and Newton?

I don't.

The flat earth model is not the topic of conversation.

RE-tard science is the topic.

[totallackey]

Before computers existed such a model would have been impossible, right?

Before that, the models were clockwork devices called orrery.  For example, from 1568:

Fails to depict the motion of the Sun.

[Curious Squirrel]

What purpose does such a model to the accuracy you are demanding serve? I can't think of any. So why would it exist, regardless of being possible or not? A CGI rendering like you describe is probably a years worth or more of man hours. So why would it exist? If you can answer that question, it might be possible to find.

As an aside, I highly doubt anything of this sort will come out and list Newton or Kepler. You'll have to look for their influence in the math.

[rabinoz]

Before computers existed such a model would have been impossible, right?

Before that, the models were clockwork devices called orrery.  For example, from 1568:

Fails to depict the motion of the Sun.

What motion of the sun? It's a mechanical simulation of the motion of the inner planets in the heliocentric solar system. Heliocentric means "sun centred".

[Rama Set]

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 Thermodynamics and gravity.

Does anyone have such a model, open for inspection?

The title of the thread is a little dramatic, in a high school gossip or click-bait kind of way. Have a look at the below and I will eagerly await your insults and misunderstanding of the topic.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/software/mica/micainfo.php

[totallackey]

What purpose does such a model to the accuracy you are demanding serve?

It serves to demonstrate Kepler and Newton are correct. 

I can't think of any.

Does not surprise me.

So why would it exist, regardless of being possible or not? A CGI rendering like you describe is probably a years worth or more of man hours. So why would it exist? If you can answer that question, it might be possible to find.

Again, Kepler and Newton are the "GODS of SCIENCE," when it comes to orbital mechanics. Any model not utilizing their mathematical formulas or equations is bupkus, right?

As an aside, I highly doubt anything of this sort will come out and list Newton or Kepler. You'll have to look for their influence in the math.

I also doubt it will come out because it will prove the heliocentric model to be wrong.

[totallackey]

What motion of the sun?

The motion of the Sun through the Milky Way.

It's a mechanical simulation of the motion of the inner planets in the heliocentric solar system. Heliocentric means "sun centred".

Yeah?

Then it is useless and off topic in terms of the OP.

[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.

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.

Does anyone have such a model, open for inspection?

The title of the thread is a little dramatic, in a high school gossip or click-bait kind of way. Have a look at the below and I will eagerly await your insults and misunderstanding of the topic.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/software/mica/micainfo.php

Does the link you supply provide a CGI rendering of the Solar System throughout the Milky Way?

That is a direct "yes or no" question.

I could not find it in the description.

If the answer is yes, then does that CGI model base the inputs for the rendering on the known equations and formulas provided by Kepler and Newton?

That, too, is a direct "yes or no" question.

"...misunderstanding of the topic."

Okay, Newton and Kepler not required evidently, according to you...

Why should anyone believe this?

[Rama Set]

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 Thermodynamics and gravity.

Does anyone have such a model, open for inspection?

The title of the thread is a little dramatic, in a high school gossip or click-bait kind of way. Have a look at the below and I will eagerly await your insults and misunderstanding of the topic.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/software/mica/micainfo.php

Does the link you supply provide a CGI rendering of the Solar System throughout the Milky Way?

That is a direct "yes or no" question.

I could not find it in the description.

If the answer is yes, then does that CGI model base the inputs for the rendering on the known equations and formulas provided by Kepler and Newton?

That, too, is a direct "yes or no" question.

My answer to your direct “yes or no” question is “go find out for yourself”.

"...misunderstanding of the topic."

Okay, Newton and Kepler not required evidently, according to you...

Why should anyone believe this?

Misunderstanding confirmed.

[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.

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.

Does anyone have such a model, open for inspection?

The title of the thread is a little dramatic, in a high school gossip or click-bait kind of way. Have a look at the below and I will eagerly await your insults and misunderstanding of the topic.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/software/mica/micainfo.php

Does the link you supply provide a CGI rendering of the Solar System throughout the Milky Way?

That is a direct "yes or no" question.

I could not find it in the description.

If the answer is yes, then does that CGI model base the inputs for the rendering on the known equations and formulas provided by Kepler and Newton?

That, too, is a direct "yes or no" question.

My answer to your direct “yes or no” question is “go find out for yourself”.

"...misunderstanding of the topic."

Okay, Newton and Kepler not required evidently, according to you...

Why should anyone believe this?

Misunderstanding confirmed.

EPIC failure Rama Set...

In other words, you go find some support to justify your presence in the thread.

You are making an unsubstantiated claim I misunderstand my own OP?

That is rich.

You JREF_ugees are simply trying to bury the OP behind a massive wall of innocuous text.

I won't have it.

So, repeating the OP here:

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?

[Curious Squirrel]

What purpose does such a model to the accuracy you are demanding serve?

It serves to demonstrate Kepler and Newton are correct. 

I can't think of any.

Does not surprise me.

So why would it exist, regardless of being possible or not? A CGI rendering like you describe is probably a years worth or more of man hours. So why would it exist? If you can answer that question, it might be possible to find.

Again, Kepler and Newton are the "GODS of SCIENCE," when it comes to orbital mechanics. Any model not utilizing their mathematical formulas or equations is bupkus, right?

As an aside, I highly doubt anything of this sort will come out and list Newton or Kepler. You'll have to look for their influence in the math.

I also doubt it will come out because it will prove the heliocentric model to be wrong.

So no, you have no credible idea why such a model would exist, and don't seem to understand why such a model wouldn't necessarily come out and list Kepler and Newton explicitly. 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?

[douglips]

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?

The link from Rama Set is such a thing.

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.

[totallackey]

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.