[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.

If humans can manufacture trash like this:
 


Then why can we not post the real deal, based on "real science?"

[xenotolerance]

There does not exist a complete computer model of the economy of Australia; nor a model of ridership on the tube wrt each individual; nor a model of the electrical wiring in the Louvre. That models of these things have yet to be made is not evidence that economists don't understand Australia, nor urban planners the tube, nor electricians the Louvre. At best, it is evidence that making these models is not necessary to prove they exist nor to understand them effectively.

So it is with the solar system; or it would be, except that computer models of it do exist, as so many examples were given in the previous thread you made on this exact topic, that went so well.

I again present solarsystemscope.com to the forum, and again decline to participate further in this highly-regarded shitshow.

[totallackey]

There does not exist a complete computer model of the economy of Australia

How do you know?

I am of the opinion there are many computer simulations of economies, utilizing many different economic theories.

When I attended Fresno State University in 1981, we did computer modeling in my Macro Economic class (actually using PUNCH CARDS for data entry!!! LMFAO!!!)

Please provide evidence of your assertion.

Plus, there are no competing theories on regard to the heliocentric model. You have an accepted theory governed by specific Laws of Motion and Thermodynamics.

nor a model of ridership on the tube wrt each individual;

Why would a model of any subway be broken down to the individual riders?

A demographic model would be of far more value.

nor a model of the electrical wiring in the Louvre.

Well, this is just about the most ridiculous claim I have ever seen in my life.

Does not even deserve an answer.

As an aside, the models which you are proposing are so far removed from the CGI rendering of the Solar System it could be considered quite meaningless as a base for arguing the issue.

That models of these things have yet to be made

A dubious claim which requires more evidence than your word, I am afraid.

is not evidence that economists don't understand Australia, nor urban planners the tube, nor electricians the Louvre. At best, it is evidence that making these models is not necessary to prove they exist nor to understand them effectively.

You need more evidence models do not exist. 

So it is with the solar system; or it would be, except that computer models of it do exist, as so many examples were given in the previous thread you made on this exact topic, that went so well.

None of which fit the bill.

I again present solarsystemscope.com to the forum, and again decline to participate further in this highly-regarded shitshow.

It would be smart of you to decline further participation as your argumentation is flawed and baseless. Your model is in the wrong thread. Plus, it has no verified pedigree. Plus the rest of the forum disavowed your model as accurate.

[Rounder]

You’re seeing the trees but not the forest.  Each of the models you find so ridiculous to even suggest?  THAT’S THE POINT.  Demanding a computer model of a thing, then rejecting that the thing exists when no model is presented, is ridiculous.

[totallackey]

You’re seeing the trees but not the forest.  Each of the models you find so ridiculous to even suggest?  THAT’S THE POINT.  Demanding a computer model of a thing, then rejecting that the thing exists when no model is presented, is ridiculous.

I am of the impression you are the one who lacks understanding.

There are models that exist.

It is obvious they exist.

What is also obvious the models that exist are not based on the science that gave birth to the  heliocentric model.

[douglips]

It would be super helpful for you to stop using heliocentric, because then people think you want a model of the solar system of which plenty exist.

What you really want is a model of the entire galaxy, which seems like a really weird thing to want, given the difficulties in observing the galaxy.

Isn't it sufficiently supportive of Newtonian mechanics to have accurate models of the solar system?

[Curious Squirrel]

What is also obvious the models that exist are not based on the science that gave birth to the  heliocentric model.

Prove your claim.

[totallackey]

It would be super helpful for you to stop using heliocentric, because then people think you want a model of the solar system if which plenty exist.

None of which depict the complete Solar System in motion according to the Newton.

What you really want is a model of the entire galaxy, which seems like a really weird thing to want, given the difficulties in observing the galaxy.

No, just the Solar System.

Isn't it sufficiently supportive of Newtonian mechanics to have accurate models of the solar system?

Yes.

Do you have one representing the entire Solar System in motion?

If so, please present that model here.

[totallackey]

What is also obvious the models that exist are not based on the science that gave birth to the  heliocentric model.

Prove your claim.

At this point, I feel justified enough in my claim to let it stand.

At some point it becomes evident enough in an argument to ascertain who is uttering fact or fiction. If the models available relied on the calculations of Newton, it would be patently indicated. Since they do not, as far as I can tell, I will rely on you to prove me wrong.

Post the model here:https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=post;topic=8557.0;last_msg=138992, along with the calculations used to build the model. Show the model in complete motion according to the terms stated in the OP.

[Rama Set]

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)

Welcome back.  I presented you with a model.

to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie:

2) Newton is wrong;

3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.

If humans can manufacture trash like this:
 


Then why can we not post the real deal, based on "real science?"

Even though we have, the lack of the creation of a CGI model says absolutely nothing about Newton or the Laws of Thermodynamics.  This is an absolute non sequitur.  Newton's laws and thermodynamics have been tested in thousands of ways over hundreds of years and it is extermely well established where they are accurate and where they are not.  These laws were accurate before computers existed too.

[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)

Welcome back.  I presented you with a model.

Thank you.

Yes you did, and since it did not clearly present any reference to any use of Kepler/Newton in the formation of any CGI rendering (nor did it actually present an opportunity for CGI rendering), what is there to do with the model you presented, except reject it?

If you would be so kind and helpful to provide direction to the CGI rendering and the math utilized in its creation, that would be appreciated.

to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie:

2) Newton is wrong;

3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.

If humans can manufacture trash like this:
 


Then why can we not post the real deal, based on "real science?"

Even though we have, the lack of the creation of a CGI model says absolutely nothing about Newton or the Laws of Thermodynamics.  This is an absolute non sequitur.

If I was demanding a CGI rendering of your dog taking a dump in your back yard as evidence of the Solar System moves as science claims it does or the math of Newton supports the textbook representation of the movements of the Solar System, then yes...that would be a non-sequitur.

But I am not.

Also, am I to take this statement: "the lack of the creation of a CGI model ..." as an admission your model submission did not meet the requirements of my original request?

And that no model actually exists?

Newton's laws and thermodynamics have been tested in thousands of ways over hundreds of years and it is extermely[sic] well established where they are accurate and where they are not.  These laws were accurate before computers existed too.

That is exactly my point.

A CGI rendering would only serve to solidify the science.

[PickYerPoison]

Let me get this straight - if someone presented you with a "complete" model, you would subscribe to RET? Why is that your sticking point? What if they're lying about the math? Wouldn't you need to learn the math and build the model yourself for it to prove anything to you?

Or, per the Zetetic Method, build every possible model and prove that only the Flat Earth model works...

[douglips]

It would be super helpful for you to stop using heliocentric, because then people think you want a model of the solar system if which plenty exist.

None of which depict the complete Solar System in motion according to the Newton.

What you really want is a model of the entire galaxy, which seems like a really weird thing to want, given the difficulties in observing the galaxy.

No, just the Solar System.

Isn't it sufficiently supportive of Newtonian mechanics to have accurate models of the solar system?

Yes.

Do you have one representing the entire Solar System in motion?

If so, please present that model here.

I gave such a model in the other thread, and I'm happy to give it to you. But first we need to agree what the word heliocentric means, or you need to stop using it.

Heliocentric means sun-centered, so any heliocentric model has the sun stationary. You seem to want the sun in motion, which means you want a galactic-centric or universe-centric model, I think.

Here is my model that is heliocentric, meaning it is choosing the sun's frame of reference.
----
 https://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/

Source:
https://github.com/mgvez/jsorrery/blob/master/src/algorithm/Gravity.js
- uses Newton's law of gravitation.

[totallackey]

It would be super helpful for you to stop using heliocentric, because then people think you want a model of the solar system if which plenty exist.

None of which depict the complete Solar System in motion according to the Newton.

What you really want is a model of the entire galaxy, which seems like a really weird thing to want, given the difficulties in observing the galaxy.

No, just the Solar System.

Isn't it sufficiently supportive of Newtonian mechanics to have accurate models of the solar system?

Yes.

Do you have one representing the entire Solar System in motion?

If so, please present that model here.

I gave such a model in the other thread, and I'm happy to give it to you. But first we need to agree what the word heliocentric means, or you need to stop using it.

Heliocentric means sun-centered, so any heliocentric model has the sun stationary. You seem to want the sun in motion, which means you want a galactic-centric or universe-centric model, I think.

Here is my model that is heliocentric, meaning it is choosing the sun's frame of reference.
----
 https://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/

Source:
https://github.com/mgvez/jsorrery/blob/master/src/algorithm/Gravity.js
- uses Newton's law of gravitation.

A CGI rendering of the Solar System, showing the Sun in its revolutionary motion at 485,000 MPH, with the planets and all other objects in the Solar System dutifully in tow...

Is that what you present here?

No, it is respectfully not.

The fact I would be observing the movement from "outside," a point of reference other than the Sun does not change the fact I would be observing a System of planets in orbits centered upon the Sun.

Thus, the term "heliocentric," stands.

[AATW]

You defined the model in such a way that one probably doesn't exist, most models of the solar system - and you were given plenty in the other thread - will not model the sun spinning as that is not what they are intended for, they are meant to model the movement of the planets, which they do. What would a spinning sun add to the model? And the models aren't going to show the sun's movement because that would mean a model of the whole galaxy.

It is ludicrous logic "A model to these exact incredibly specific specifications doesn't exist, ergo heliocentricity is dead!"

Maybe you should think about whether a flat earth model exists which can explain sunset (without making up perspective rules which don't reflect reality), let alone anything else.

[Ratboy]

The thing about CGI is that it is not cheap.  When we watch Toy Story, the funny thing is the animation started with artists drawing the characters.  Then sculptors created clay models of these drawings.  Only then did they take pictures of the physically real clay models from all sorts of angles to create a digital model that then was used to create the film Toy Story or any other Pixar film.  They did not create a CGI model of these characters using a computer.  So I am not surprised that CGI models of pretty much anything exists or does not exist. 
I will add that I do not see any CGI model of a flat earth that explains anything we can observe ourselves zenetically. I would like to see some model that shows how southern Chile can get 15 hours of sunlight.
And Newton is "wrong" when taken to the scale outside the limits of practicality.  Engineers use stress to design bridges but no one has ever shown that stress actually exists.  The model predicts the behavior of the bridge but it has never been shown to exist.

[totallackey]

You'll likely have to build your own. Below is a link to source code for making orbital animations.

https://zingale.github.io/astro_animations/

This book may also assist you in your effort.

https://books.google.com/books?id=upa42dyhf38C&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=orbits+thermodynamics&source=bl&ots=60lfON4z2v&sig=rUDuVjvCbj51uSRvhyfIBr4ddzY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1m63B3enYAhXDulMKHVJjCe0Q6AEIcjAL#v=onepage&q=orbits%20thermodynamics&f=false

Your reply does not surprise me.

I find the failure of those who support the heliocentric model to provide an accurate model (with open and honest references to Newton/Kepler/Einstein, etc.) to be on par with NIST and their report concerning WTC 7.

A total prevention of open, honest scientific inquiry into reality.

[totallackey]

You defined the model in such a way that one probably doesn't exist, most models of the solar system - and you were given plenty in the other thread - will not model the sun spinning as that is not what they are intended for, they are meant to model the movement of the planets, which they do. What would a spinning sun add to the model? And the models aren't going to show the sun's movement because that would mean a model of the whole galaxy.

Did you see the phony model I presented?

Do you see a moving Sun?

Do see the moving planets?

ANSWER = YES

So please, refrain from posting such a patently false paragraph.

It is ludicrous logic "A model to these exact incredibly specific specifications doesn't exist, ergo heliocentricity is dead!"

I don't think so.

It is nothing but simple math.

Computers and monitors just so happen to be the perfect tools to build these types of mathematical models.

Maybe you should think about whether a flat earth model exists which can explain sunset (without making up perspective rules which don't reflect reality), let alone anything else.

Maybe you should try sticking to the topic at hand.

[totallackey]

The thing about CGI is that it is not cheap.  When we watch Toy Story, the funny thing is the animation started with artists drawing the characters.  Then sculptors created clay models of these drawings.  Only then did they take pictures of the physically real clay models from all sorts of angles to create a digital model that then was used to create the film Toy Story or any other Pixar film.  They did not create a CGI model of these characters using a computer.  So I am not surprised that CGI models of pretty much anything exists or does not exist.

Please, NASA or JPL or any of the other sites have already spent money providing CGI renderings of the Solar System. The fact their renderings are not accurate or based on Newton/Kepler/Einstein, et.al., is damning evidence that either the math is wrong or the model is wrong.   

I will add that I do not see any CGI model of a flat earth that explains anything we can observe ourselves zenetically[sic] would like to see some model that shows how southern Chile can get 15 hours of sunlight.

Attempted thread derailment noted and I would ask you please stick to the subject material at hand.

And Newton is "wrong" when taken to the scale outside the limits of practicality.  Engineers use stress to design bridges but no one has ever shown that stress actually exists.  The model predicts the behavior of the bridge but it has never been shown to exist.

Again, how is this paragraph to be taken as anything less than off-topic.

[douglips]

I don't think so.

It is nothing but simple math.

Computers and monitors just so happen to be the perfect tools to build these types of mathematical models.

Yes. But it still takes many person hours to build them, and with no reason to do so who is going to do it?

Maybe you should try sticking to the topic at hand.

Is that why you brought up WTC 7?