How are you defining "complete"? Just the sun and planets? Planets and moons?Complete as in complete.
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?
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.
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?Before that, the models were clockwork devices called orrery (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrery). For example, from 1568:
For a computer model of the solar system, see solarsystemscope.com (http://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.
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.
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.
And, I'm outWere you ever here, for all the use your links were?
Who cares?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...Computation limits?
...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.
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?
Fails to depict the motion of the Sun.Before computers existed such a model would have been impossible, right?Before that, the models were clockwork devices called orrery (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrery). For example, from 1568:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Astronomical_clock_%28Venus-Mercury_side%29%2C_Eberhard_Baldewein_et_al%2C_Marburg-Kassel%2C_1563-1568_-_Mathematisch-Physikalischer_Salon%2C_Dresden_-_DSC08057.jpg/1280px-Astronomical_clock_%28Venus-Mercury_side%29%2C_Eberhard_Baldewein_et_al%2C_Marburg-Kassel%2C_1563-1568_-_Mathematisch-Physikalischer_Salon%2C_Dresden_-_DSC08057.jpg)
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".Fails to depict the motion of the Sun.Before computers existed such a model would have been impossible, right?Before that, the models were clockwork devices called orrery (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrery). For example, from 1568:(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Astronomical_clock_%28Venus-Mercury_side%29%2C_Eberhard_Baldewein_et_al%2C_Marburg-Kassel%2C_1563-1568_-_Mathematisch-Physikalischer_Salon%2C_Dresden_-_DSC08057.jpg/1280px-Astronomical_clock_%28Venus-Mercury_side%29%2C_Eberhard_Baldewein_et_al%2C_Marburg-Kassel%2C_1563-1568_-_Mathematisch-Physikalischer_Salon%2C_Dresden_-_DSC08057.jpg)
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?
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.
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?
Does the link you supply provide a CGI rendering of the Solar System throughout the Milky Way?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
"...misunderstanding of the topic."Okay, Newton and Kepler not required evidently, according to you...
Does the link you supply provide a CGI rendering of the Solar System throughout the Milky Way?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
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?
EPIC failure Rama Set...Does the link you supply provide a CGI rendering of the Solar System throughout the Milky Way?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
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”.Quote"...misunderstanding of the topic."Okay, Newton and Kepler not required evidently, according to you...
Why should anyone believe this?
Misunderstanding confirmed.
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?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...Yes I do have a credible idea about 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.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.
How are you defining "complete"? Just the sun and planets? Planets and moons?Complete as in complete.
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?"
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?
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?
Newton found Kepler's work to be unambiguous and provided support.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.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."
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.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Does anyone have such a model, open for inspection?Probably not, especially as your requirements were incorrect.
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.Will examine it and have some friends examine it.
http://lab.la-grange.ca/en/building-jsorrery-a-javascript-webgl-solar-system
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.Will examine it and have some friends examine it.
http://lab.la-grange.ca/en/building-jsorrery-a-javascript-webgl-solar-system
Thank you.
If that is not what you meant, then that is not what you meant.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.
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."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.
No, it does not help the OP.OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH that helps.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.
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.
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.
...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 rantGood.
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]
Yep.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"?Quote from: totallackeyThose 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.Planetary motion, at least to a very good approximation, follows Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.
- "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!
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.Quote from: totallackeyDoes anyone have such a model, open for inspection?Probably not, especially as your requirements were incorrect.
Care to start again?
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?
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 coverAm 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."
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.
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.
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.
Opinion snippedI am not interested in your opinion.
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.
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."
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!
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.
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.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 coverAm 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.
I remind everyone of the OP:Thank you for your support Curious!
"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.
Except for Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Approximations or not, scientists claim these work.Your evidence for that claim, Mr Totallackey!
Astronomy, KEPLER’S LAWLike to try again?
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 (https://www.universetoday.com/55423/keplers-law/)
https://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/Thanks for the submission.
Source:
https://github.com/mgvez/jsorrery/blob/master/src/algorithm/Gravity.js
- uses Newton's law of gravitation
No, I do not want to try again.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!Quote from: Jean TateAstronomy, KEPLER’S LAWLike to try again?
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 (https://www.universetoday.com/55423/keplers-law/)
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.
I will start my own topics.That is wonderful!
Incorrect!No, I do not want to try again.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!Quote from: Jean TateAstronomy, KEPLER’S LAWLike to try again?
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 (https://www.universetoday.com/55423/keplers-law/)
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.
Kepler's Laws are exact, as your source states.
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.
Edited for brevity.Nope.
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.
From what I can tell, this is what he's looking for.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.
Thank you for repeating my OP.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.
Seems complete to me.From what I can tell, this is what he's looking for.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.
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.
https://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/Thanks for the submission.
Source:
https://github.com/mgvez/jsorrery/blob/master/src/algorithm/Gravity.js
- uses Newton's law of gravitation
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).
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.
Yep.
Except for Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Approximations or not, scientists claim these work.
I revised the OP.
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."
Repeating the OP:https://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/Thanks for the submission.
Source:
https://github.com/mgvez/jsorrery/blob/master/src/algorithm/Gravity.js
- uses Newton's law of gravitation
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?
Thanks for repeating the OP and assisting!
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.
Repeating the OP:Thanks for repeating the OP and assisting!
"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.
That's the story.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?
That's the story.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?
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.
Struck from the record due to: OFF TOPIC! BS!That's the story.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?That’s the history. So it looks like you have to show that story false if you want to dismantle Kepler’s Laws.
Yet to be verified.QuoteRepeating 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 need to spam it like some weird robot parrot. I already provided you one.
Repeating the OP:No it would not be "Damning evidence against the heliocentric model"!
"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"As I have repeatedly stated, an accurate model would not obey "Kepler's Laws of planetary motion" because they are only approximations.
"and Newton's Laws of motion and universal gravitation and account for the Laws of Thermodynamics.Sorry, I do not take orders from a lackey! It's a lackey's place in life to take orders from his lord and master, not that I'm claim that exalted position.
Does anyone have such a model, open for inspection?"
If you do not have a model for submission, then please refrain from posting.
Definition of lackey
1. a : footman 2, servant
b : someone who does menial tasks or runs errands for another
2 : a servile follower : toady
I just registered and am not sure if this is the correct place to post something.
My name is Gregory Wiseman and I was one of the crew on the 2014 NASA expedition to the ISS. My daughter told me about this society earlier today and I am honeslty intrigued. I am not sure if the members here are truly in the pursuit of knowledge or just having fun but if it is the former then I am happy to share my personal experiences.
Having spent a little over three months in earths orbit I can tell you all that we live on a stunningly beautiful planet and the earth I can assure you is perfectly round. So perfectly round that if you shrunk it to the size of a billiard ball, it would be infinitely smoother in your hand than an actual cue ball. I've been fortunate to view the earth with my own eyes from the heavens of the ISS and our planet is no different than any other, it is round just like a globe.
I'd be happy to answer an questions if they are sincere and hope you all will continue a lifetime of learning.
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.
Off topic postYour post has been reported to the moderator as it is entirely off topic. Any response to your post has also been reported to moderation.
Off topic postYour post has been reported to the moderator as it is entirely off topic. Any response to your post has also been reported to moderation.
Please start your own thread as I am sure you will generate more than enough interest.
Have a nice day.
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.
First-hand observation of a heliocentric solar system is better than a computer simulation. Also, if he is in space then that is proof that Newtonian mechanics correctly model the solar system since they are used for calculations to get in to orbit.Your post has been reported to moderation for being off topic.
Whether or not the poster is “fake news” or not is the pertinent question.
So you finally admit I was right and cannot refute this:<< deceitfully edited quotation deleted >>
Repeating the OP:No, it would not be "Damning evidence against the heliocentric model"!
"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."Quote from: totallackey"Those inputs used for creating the model would need to minimally include Kepler's Laws of planetary motion"As I have repeatedly stated, an accurate model would not obey "Kepler's Laws of planetary motion" because they are only approximations.
And as I have stated before, the orbits of Neptune and Pluto clearly do not obey "Kepler's Laws of planetary motion".
So, your OP is still obviously flawed! Try again!
Personal editorial about the way the OP is phrased snipped.You can start your own editorial elsewhere if you like.
Your post has been reported to moderation for being off topic.