[totallackey]

This is a CGI representation of the solar system traipsing about the galaxy, with the planets dutifully in tow.

Please note it is not to scale, and also please note it is not legitimate as it does not utilize Newton/Kepler/Einstein math or laws in its formulation.

The question is this...

Where is the model that actually does use Newton/Kepler/Einstein that I can see on my computer screen?

I mean, this is a pretty cool screen saver, but I want the real "sciency," one touted by heliocentrists across the flat earth plane...

[Rama Set]

Watch this series and let us know what you think:

[totallackey]

Watch this series and let us know what you think:

Amusing video.
At approximately 2:50 in, states you need to turn the “collider,” off, otherwise planets will be careening into each other.
And other than making mention of Newton up front, there was no mention of making use of the formula for Universal Gravitation in the design of the program.
Can you post the links to the rest of the series?
No sun in motion.
Actually seemed to depict an x/y plane with objects in motion above in a cylindrical fashion, exactly as one one would see in a flat earth model.

[Rama Set]

[Rama Set]

So that series shows that just by adding objects with mass, giving them an initial vector and applying newton's law of gravitation, you can end up with a stable 3-D orbital system.

Adam Bielecki has gone further and created the actual solar system using the same software package.

https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/templates/packs/solar-system-16139

Unfortunately you have to pay for it.

[totallackey]

Thanks.

So that series shows that just by adding objects with mass, giving them an initial vector and applying newton's law of gravitation, you can end up with a stable 3-D orbital system.

Adam Bielecki has gone further and created the actual solar system using the same software package.

https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/templates/packs/solar-system-16139

Unfortunately you have to pay for it.

And I do not see the need to pay for it, as at approximately 2:00 in to part 2, which you provided, the lady states specifically the sun is NOT going to move around.

So, it really does nothing of what is claimed.

It truly does not even use Newton/Kepler/Einstein in its modeling of a MOVING solar system.

[Rama Set]

And I do not see the need to pay for it, as at approximately 2:00 in to part 2, which you provided, the lady states specifically the sun is NOT going to move around.

So, it really does nothing of what is claimed.

It truly does not even use Newton/Kepler/Einstein in its modeling of a MOVING solar system.

It does use Newton's equations for the model, I am not sure why you think otherwise?  You can see her code it.  Your issue is that it does not show the solar system moving through the galaxy?  Would you concede that it adequately models a solar system?

[totallackey]

And I do not see the need to pay for it, as at approximately 2:00 in to part 2, which you provided, the lady states specifically the sun is NOT going to move around.

So, it really does nothing of what is claimed.

It truly does not even use Newton/Kepler/Einstein in its modeling of a MOVING solar system.

It does use Newton's equations for the model, I am not sure why you think otherwise?  You can see her code it.  Your issue is that it does not show the solar system moving through the galaxy?  Would you concede that it adequately models a solar system?

How can it use Newton's equations if the model is not moving?

You do believe the sun is moving,  right?

[Rama Set]

You saw her input and talk about using Newton’s equations right? I don’t want to gloss past that. Answer that and I will come back to your question.

[Rama Set]

I am happy to continue this conversation.  Just need you to confirm that we saw the same thing: namely the video creator coding for newton's law of gravitation and laws of motion?

[AATW]

How can it use Newton's equations if the model is not moving?

You do believe the sun is moving,  right?

Presumably because of the frame of reference they have chosen.
If you are on a plane and you jump you don't go shooting to the back of the plane.
Assuming the plane is going at a constant velocity and you jump straight up you're going to land where you took off.
If you were going to use Newton's laws to track your path you wouldn't consider the movement of the plane.
You can choose different frames of references, it depends what you are trying to model. If you are going to model the solar system then you would probably start on the basis of a stationary sun. That isn't the reality but you don't need to consider the sun's movement when modelling the solar system any more than you need to consider the plane's movement when modelling where you will land when you jump on one.

[totallackey]

I am happy to continue this conversation.  Just need you to confirm that we saw the same thing: namely the video creator coding for newton's law of gravitation and laws of motion?

I heard her mention it.

Now, kindly inform us all how that could be relevant if the model's visual output does NOT render a visual image of the sun appearing to move as in the gif I presented in the OP...

[totallackey]

How can it use Newton's equations if the model is not moving?

You do believe the sun is moving,  right?

Presumably because of the frame of reference they have chosen.
If you are on a plane and you jump you don't go shooting to the back of the plane.
Assuming the plane is going at a constant velocity and you jump straight up you're going to land where you took off.
If you were going to use Newton's laws to track your path you wouldn't consider the movement of the plane.
You can choose different frames of references, it depends what you are trying to model. If you are going to model the solar system then you would probably start on the basis of a stationary sun. That isn't the reality but you don't need to consider the sun's movement when modelling the solar system any more than you need to consider the plane's movement when modelling where you will land when you jump on one.

Evidently some heliocentrist thought it was important enough to model actual reality to the point where he COULD NOT USE THE ACTUAL MATH to get the REAL PICTURE!

Curious, don't ya think?

[Rama Set]

I am happy to continue this conversation.  Just need you to confirm that we saw the same thing: namely the video creator coding for newton's law of gravitation and laws of motion?

I heard her mention it.

And you saw her input code that used Newton’s laws?  Would you agree that this is a model of bodies in orbit using Newton’s Laws?

Now, kindly inform us all how that could be relevant if the model's visual output does NOT render a visual image of the sun appearing to move as in the gif I presented in the OP...

As mentioned it’s a matter of Newtonian relativity. If you want to model the motion of planets relative to the sun, you don’t need to account for the motion of the sun. Modeling the motion of the sun through the galaxy is an exponentially more complex matter. I would be surprised if we have enough data to plot its motion as accurately as with planets in the solar system. The gif above is not difficult to create but it’s meant to be an illustration of principle rather than an accurate model.

[AATW]

Evidently some heliocentrist thought it was important enough to model actual reality to the point where he COULD NOT USE THE ACTUAL MATH to get the REAL PICTURE!

Curious, don't ya think?

I genuinely don't know what you are talking about.
The model you're talking about is of the solar system. The obvious frame of reference to choose when modelling that is that of a stationary sun. It's like how you'd model a person jumping on the ground the exact same way you'd model it on a plane travelling at a constant velocity. If the airplane is accelerating as the person jumps, then you'd have to take that into account.
I honestly don't know what you're getting at here.

[totallackey]

I am happy to continue this conversation.  Just need you to confirm that we saw the same thing: namely the video creator coding for newton's law of gravitation and laws of motion?

I heard her mention it.

And you saw her input code that used Newton’s laws?  Would you agree that this is a model of bodies in orbit using Newton’s Laws?

Why do you want me and everyone else to think this model is anything like the one I posted in the OP. Here it is again:

Now, please answer the question. Does the model you provide depict the sun moving or not?

Now, kindly inform us all how that could be relevant if the model's visual output does NOT render a visual image of the sun appearing to move as in the gif I presented in the OP...

As mentioned it’s a matter of Newtonian relativity. If you want to model the motion of planets relative to the sun, you don’t need to account for the motion of the sun. Modeling the motion of the sun through the galaxy is an exponentially more complex matter. I would be surprised if we have enough data to plot its motion as accurately as with planets in the solar system. The gif above is not difficult to create but it’s meant to be an illustration of principle rather than an accurate model.

Well, since I asked for an accurate model that looked like the one I presented in the OP and you can't find it, I think we all can take that as an admission it can't be done.

Newton/Kepler/Einstein really doesn't work as advertised.

Thanks for owning up to this fact.

[totallackey]

Evidently some heliocentrist thought it was important enough to model actual reality to the point where he COULD NOT USE THE ACTUAL MATH to get the REAL PICTURE!

Curious, don't ya think?

I genuinely don't know what you are talking about.

You don't know the solar system is supposedly moving throughout the galaxy?

According to the the scientists you hold dear, it is.

That is what I am writing about.

The model you're talking about is of the solar system. The obvious frame of reference to choose when modelling that is that of a stationary sun.

Then why did this:
get out?

It's like how you'd model a person jumping on the ground the exact same way you'd model it on a plane travelling at a constant velocity. If the airplane is accelerating as the person jumps, then you'd have to take that into account.
I honestly don't know what you're getting at here.

I am getting at providing an accurate CGI representation of a moving solar system, according to the scientists...you know, real "sciency," based on Newton/Kepler/Einstein math...

[Rama Set]

I am happy to continue this conversation.  Just need you to confirm that we saw the same thing: namely the video creator coding for newton's law of gravitation and laws of motion?

I heard her mention it.

And you saw her input code that used Newton’s laws?  Would you agree that this is a model of bodies in orbit using Newton’s Laws?

Why do you want me and everyone else to think this model is anything like the one I posted in the OP. Here it is again:

Now, please answer the question. Does the model you provide depict the sun moving or not?

Now, kindly inform us all how that could be relevant if the model's visual output does NOT render a visual image of the sun appearing to move as in the gif I presented in the OP...

As mentioned it’s a matter of Newtonian relativity. If you want to model the motion of planets relative to the sun, you don’t need to account for the motion of the sun. Modeling the motion of the sun through the galaxy is an exponentially more complex matter. I would be surprised if we have enough data to plot its motion as accurately as with planets in the solar system. The gif above is not difficult to create but it’s meant to be an illustration of principle rather than an accurate model.

Well, since I asked for an accurate model that looked like the one I presented in the OP and you can't find it, I think we all can take that as an admission it can't be done.

Newton/Kepler/Einstein really doesn't work as advertised.

Thanks for owning up to this fact.

You’ve seen a solar system can be modeled with Newton’s laws but for some reason you think that adding a velocity to the sun renders the entire enterprise impossible? Explain why that step makes the whole thing fall apart at least.

[AATW]

You don't know the solar system is supposedly moving throughout the galaxy?

I do know that but I don’t know why you’d expect any solar system model to account for it. Because it makes no difference to the movements of the planets or moons in the solar system.
Why would you add unnecessary complication to a model when it isn’t needed?

Then why did this:
get out?

I don’t know what you mean by “get out” but I assume that animation was done to explain to the layman the fact that the solar system is moving.

I am getting at providing an accurate CGI representation of a moving solar system, according to the scientists...you know, real "sciency," based on Newton/Kepler/Einstein math...

I don’t know if that exists, to be honest I’m not sure what anyone would do it for.
Maybe someone has but I’m not going to look for one. I’m not sure what you think it would prove. An accurate model of the solar system - and we have those - should give enough confidence in the laws of physics which underpin it.

[xasop]

I am getting at providing an accurate CGI representation of a moving solar system, according to the scientists...you know, real "sciency," based on Newton/Kepler/Einstein math...

I don’t know if that exists

Of course it does. Take any CGI model of a stationary solar system, set it running on your computer screen, then get up and walk past the screen. The screen (and hence the model) is now moving relative to you.