OK, you asked newhorizons for evidence of:
a rendered simulation of the solar system, based on the combined math of Kepler, Newton, and Einstein
I have provided you evidence that a rendered simulation of the solar system (Stellarium) does (according to the authors) at the very least use Kepler's equation and I've literally pointed you at the lines of source code involved.
No, you pointed me and other members to an overview of what the authors claim to contain such code.
Furthermore, as I have pointed out, the material you provided makes no claim or reference whether or not the lines of code or Kepler's equations are even utilized in performing the rendering or yielding a visual representation.
I have provided evidence that the authors of the definitive paper describing VSOP87 (which is the method Stellarium - and others - uses for planetary positioning) also claim to use Kepler's equation.
You did not ask for proof, you asked for evidence. I have provided you with the evidence you asked for, so now you shift the goalposts and you appear to be accusing the authors of the software and the paper describing VSOP87 of lying when they make their claims about using Kepler's equation.
You are correct.
I asked for evidence.
I am not accusing anyone of lying, certainly not you or the programmers/developers of the software.
I have factually explained what was written in the source you provided and have shown what you have provided is evidence of mentioning Kepler and equations, not evidence it is utilized in rendering visuals.
Furthermore, when it comes VSOP87, I find this:
"The first step in computing the apparent position of a planet is computing the heliocentric coordinates (such as X,Y,Z) for both the planet and the Earth at the same moment."
So it appears that, even if this program is utilized, it does not render a 3 - body resolution to the rendering, nor can it render an entire solar system.
Just think about this for a second. The authors in both cases did not need to mention Kepler at all.
Quite true.
They did not.
By claiming, in publicly available media, they were using Kepler's equations, both sets of authors were exposing themselves to scrutiny from anyone capable of reading the math and/or understanding code. Why would they do this if the claims were bogus?
As I pointed out, there is nothing in writing indicating the use of Kepler's equation has anything to do with the visual outputs.
I think it's pretty clear that you didn't expect anyone to actually go to the trouble of digging out the evidence you said you wanted, so you now have to backpedal and dismiss the evidence and essentially say "prove the authors aren't lying".
I think it is actually quite clear, as explained here, I have done no such thing.
So, if in testing it is clearly demonstrated the inputs of these programs include nothing containing the math from Kepler, Newton, and Einstein, where does that leave you?
And where does this leave you now?
Where I was prior to your reply to this thread.