Meteor Showers

  • 111 Replies
  • 7970 Views
?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4109
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #90 on: May 23, 2017, 03:49:21 AM »

That is why you just cannot plug in the math inputs and render a working and accurate rendering of the Solar System which would be visible for all to see.


http://www.stellarium.org/

https://celestiaproject.net/

http://www.worldwidetelescope.org/

All built by plugging in the maths.
None of which provide a full model.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #91 on: May 23, 2017, 04:09:21 AM »
What nature?
Again, that isn't an explanation, that is just a needless complexity which answers nothing.
Are you denying the existence of nature?
No. I'm asking you to provide an explanation, rather than just adding words.
In this case to describe this nature, provide an actual explanation.

Good thing I didn't.
I used a gravitationally bound orbit.
Nothing but adding words.
No. Adding an explanation, something you lack.

No, it wasn't.
Yes it was.

Even if it was just the Sun and Earth pair, with the Sun moving throughout space there is no way the Earth could maintain an elliptical path.
In what reference frame?
In the sun centred reference frame, it traces an elliptical path.

Yes, I see, no refutation, just more claims.
When all you post is a claim, I do not know why you would expect something more in return.
Good thing I posted more than just a claim then.

Yes, there is. It is a result of adding up the forces from each object.
Only when they are in resonance do you get a simple solution, such as L1 through 5.
Inventions of fantasy.
No, solutions to a 3 body problem.

Except people have done that. Repeatedly.
No.

They have not.
Incorrect.

No. Not only have you failed to provide an explanation, you have failed to explain why the RE explanation is wrong.
See above.
I have seen the above. No explanation provided by you, no refutation of the RE explanation.

I take it you missed the section where some is a result of change and some occurs far more during the night?
I take it you missed the part referring to exceptions, which occur regardless.
Yes, I did miss that section, as that wasn't in there at all.
In fact, if you search the page for exceptions, you wont find a single instance there.

Are you surprised I missed something that wasn't there.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #92 on: May 23, 2017, 04:19:58 AM »

That is why you just cannot plug in the math inputs and render a working and accurate rendering of the Solar System which would be visible for all to see.


http://www.stellarium.org/

https://celestiaproject.net/

http://www.worldwidetelescope.org/

All built by plugging in the maths.
None of which provide a full model.

and with your vast experience of them, what is missing? What arbitrary standard are you applying that allows you to dismiss them as invalid?
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4109
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #93 on: May 23, 2017, 04:25:04 AM »
No. I'm asking you to provide an explanation, rather than just adding words.
In this case to describe this nature, provide an actual explanation.
Adding the words "gravitationally bound orbits," is not adding an explanation.

It is adding adverbs and adjectives.

I agree the meteors demonstrate movement overhead that is predictable and happens according to its season, just like everything else in the heavens above.
No. Adding an explanation, something you lack.
See above.
Yes it was.
No it was not.

In what reference frame?
In the sun centred reference frame, it traces an elliptical path.
How do you know?

You cannot know, and no one could possibly know.
Good thing I posted more than just a claim then.
Where?

No, solutions to a 3 body problem.
Not possible given there is no solution to the two body problem as of yet.
Incorrect.
Absolutely correct.
I have seen the above. No explanation provided by you, no refutation of the RE explanation.
My explanation is just as valid as yours with less assumptions.

Things overhead can clearly be seen and are moving.

We clearly experience via senses we are not moving.
Yes, I did miss that section, as that wasn't in there at all.
In fact, if you search the page for exceptions, you wont find a single instance there.

Are you surprised I missed something that wasn't there.
Last I checked, the word, "some," denotes or otherwise indicates "exceptions," exist.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4109
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #94 on: May 23, 2017, 04:27:42 AM »

That is why you just cannot plug in the math inputs and render a working and accurate rendering of the Solar System which would be visible for all to see.


http://www.stellarium.org/

https://celestiaproject.net/

http://www.worldwidetelescope.org/

All built by plugging in the maths.
None of which provide a full model.

and with your vast experience of them, what is missing? What arbitrary standard are you applying that allows you to dismiss them as invalid?
The CGI model of the supposed Solar System, traipsing and gallavanting about the Milky Way, with all the planets maintaining elliptical orbits dutifully in tow, is what is missing.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #95 on: May 23, 2017, 05:13:53 AM »
No. I'm asking you to provide an explanation, rather than just adding words.
In this case to describe this nature, provide an actual explanation.
Adding the words "gravitationally bound orbits," is not adding an explanation.
That is a few words that make up part of the explanation.
How about you read the whole thing?

I agree the meteors demonstrate movement overhead that is predictable and happens according to its season, just like everything else in the heavens above.
Again, do you have an explanation?

How do you know?
Because that is what is observed.
If you take our reference frame, take note of all the apparent motions and then translate that to a sun-centred reference frame, that is what you get.

You cannot know, and no one could possibly know.
No, we can. Not everyone wishes to remain as ignorant as you.

Good thing I posted more than just a claim then.
Where?
See above.

No, solutions to a 3 body problem.
Not possible given there is no solution to the two body problem as of yet.
The 2 body problem is the simple case, which has had solutions done for ages.
3 body is harder, but it also has solutions, at least when the 2 masses are significantly different.
So how about you cut the crap?

My explanation is just as valid as yours with less assumptions.
What explanation?
You didn't provide one at all. You just said that is how it is. That is not an explanation.

We clearly experience via senses we are not moving.
No, we don't.
We clearly experience via our senses that there is relative motion. Our senses are completely unable to detect absolute motion.


Last I checked, the word, "some," denotes or otherwise indicates "exceptions," exist.
And last I checked, the page you linked did not have an exceptions section where it claimed everything is effected just like you say.

The CGI model of the supposed Solar System, traipsing and gallavanting about the Milky Way, with all the planets maintaining elliptical orbits dutifully in tow, is what is missing.
And you have already been told why you aren't going to get one.
We don't have all the data for the galaxy.
There is a large section which we can't see.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #96 on: May 23, 2017, 06:02:35 AM »

That is why you just cannot plug in the math inputs and render a working and accurate rendering of the Solar System which would be visible for all to see.


http://www.stellarium.org/

https://celestiaproject.net/

http://www.worldwidetelescope.org/

All built by plugging in the maths.
None of which provide a full model.

and with your vast experience of them, what is missing? What arbitrary standard are you applying that allows you to dismiss them as invalid?
The CGI model of the supposed Solar System, traipsing and gallavanting about the Milky Way, with all the planets maintaining elliptical orbits dutifully in tow, is what is missing.

I have already shown you comparison of images in Stellarium showing that there is indeed a difference in the location of stars over time, but whatever, so what.

Apart from that you made no reference to other elements of the universe, just the solar system. That solar system can be observed from outside it in Stellarium. The motions of the planets, and other objects, are recorded and can be predicted faithfully in these models. Your dismissal of them based on an arbitrary standard does not make them invalid. Prove to me where any of them have been incorrect.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4109
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #97 on: May 23, 2017, 06:59:51 AM »

I have already shown you comparison of images in Stellarium showing that there is indeed a difference in the location of stars over time, but whatever, so what.

Apart from that you made no reference to other elements of the universe, just the solar system. That solar system can be observed from outside it in Stellarium. The motions of the planets, and other objects, are recorded and can be predicted faithfully in these models. Your dismissal of them based on an arbitrary standard does not make them invalid. Prove to me where any of them have been incorrect.
First, you need to prove the view aspect presented in Stellarium is possible, let alone correct.

It is not an arbitrary standard.

The motions of planets have been observed.

It is still speculation they actually orbit the sun.

I believe I clearly wrote the word,"galaxy,' in my post, yet you now write: "Apart from that you made no reference to other elements of the universe..." IF the galaxy is not referencing another element in the universe, then what is?
« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 07:02:33 AM by totallackey »
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #98 on: May 23, 2017, 07:37:52 AM »
...
The motions of planets have been observed.
...

that is correct:
and the motions fit exactly with the heliocentric model of the solar system.

there is not one explanation of the FEIB that explains the motion of the planets (and the star) across the shy.
there are a lot of different ideas out there (some even explain that planets and stars are only a projection from a source at the north pole that get reflected at a dome above the earth), but not could present an testable evidence that supports that ideas.


 

Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #99 on: May 23, 2017, 07:48:30 AM »
Every day I'm amazed at just how ignorant/stupid/blind and arrogant flat earth believers are. It's crazy to me because they are clearly smart enough to know how to use a computer. Hell they can even put words together to form sentences. Albeit, sentences with horrible grammatical errors and misspellings.
 
It amazes me they've survived in this world long enough to get so many things wrong. Then I remember my friends wife. Seems like a smart person and even holds a job easily. Yet believes there's a massive ocean at the center of the earth, and big foot is real, oh and that essential oils are a valid replacement for medicine.

Sometimes I think society has made it too easy for people who would normally be weeded out through natural selection, to live and propagate.

?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4109
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #100 on: May 23, 2017, 09:05:15 AM »
Every day I'm amazed at just how ignorant/stupid/blind and arrogant flat earth believers are. It's crazy to me because they are clearly smart enough to know how to use a computer. Hell they can even put words together to form sentences. Albeit, sentences with horrible grammatical errors and misspellings.
 
It amazes me they've survived in this world long enough to get so many things wrong. Then I remember my friends wife. Seems like a smart person and even holds a job easily. Yet believes there's a massive ocean at the center of the earth, and big foot is real, oh and that essential oils are a valid replacement for medicine.

Sometimes I think society has made it too easy for people who would normally be weeded out through natural selection, to live and propagate.
Took the time to highlight a few of your glaring errors.

No need to thank me.

And if you wish to act in support of your view of enabling societal demands to more closely follow natural selection (i.e., pure natural selection would eliminate people who think or believe the Eaarth is flat), try starting with me.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #101 on: May 23, 2017, 09:08:10 AM »
Every day I'm amazed at just how ignorant/stupid/blind and arrogant flat earth believers are. It's crazy to me because they are clearly smart enough to know how to use a computer. Hell they can even put words together to form sentences. Albeit, sentences with horrible grammatical errors and misspellings.
 
It amazes me they've survived in this world long enough to get so many things wrong. Then I remember my friends wife. Seems like a smart person and even holds a job easily. Yet believes there's a massive ocean at the center of the earth, and big foot is real, oh and that essential oils are a valid replacement for medicine.

Sometimes I think society has made it too easy for people who would normally be weeded out through natural selection, to live and propagate.
Took the time to highlight a few of your glaring errors.

No need to thank me.

And if you wish to act in support of your view of enabling societal demands to more closely follow natural selection (i.e., pure natural selection would eliminate people who think or believe the Eaarth is flat), try starting with me.

or you can start explaining how the planets movement is explained with the Flat Earth Idea.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #102 on: May 23, 2017, 09:47:39 AM »

I have already shown you comparison of images in Stellarium showing that there is indeed a difference in the location of stars over time, but whatever, so what.

Apart from that you made no reference to other elements of the universe, just the solar system. That solar system can be observed from outside it in Stellarium. The motions of the planets, and other objects, are recorded and can be predicted faithfully in these models. Your dismissal of them based on an arbitrary standard does not make them invalid. Prove to me where any of them have been incorrect.
First, you need to prove the view aspect presented in Stellarium is possible, let alone correct.

It is not an arbitrary standard.

Yes it is. You decided on something as your standard of proof without any kind of justification in the hope that no-one will be able to provide the thing you demand.

I am happy that the computer models I gave you work. Why is my standard of proof any worse than yours?

Quote
The motions of planets have been observed.

Yes, well done. Not only have they been observed they can be predicted with clockwork regularity and absolute precision using maths, maths that you can turn into computer software.

Quote
It is still speculation they actually orbit the sun.

Nope, mathematically and empirically proven.

Quote

I believe I clearly wrote the word,"galaxy,' in my post,

Care to identify where? You asked for a working model of the solar system, not a model of how the solar system fits in with the rest of the universe.

Quote
yet you now write: "Apart from that you made no reference to other elements of the universe..." IF the galaxy is not referencing another element in the universe, then what is?

Deliberately trying to set a standard you hope no-one will be able to get to.



Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • Literally a dog
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #103 on: May 23, 2017, 11:12:04 AM »
Still waiting for that explanation* from totallackey like:



* "It happens because it happens" doesn't count.

Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #104 on: May 23, 2017, 11:26:25 AM »
Still waiting for that explanation* from totallackey like:



* "It happens because it happens" doesn't count.

That's a good one.  :D

i feel like that with every question for an explanation to an Flaty.

Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #105 on: May 23, 2017, 11:37:06 AM »
Every day I'm amazed at just how ignorant/stupid/blind and arrogant flat earth believers are. It's crazy to me because they are clearly smart enough to know how to use a computer. Hell they can even put words together to form sentences. Albeit, sentences with horrible grammatical errors and misspellings.
 
It amazes me they've survived in this world long enough to get so many things wrong. Then I remember my friends wife. Seems like a smart person and even holds a job easily. Yet believes there's a massive ocean at the center of the earth, and big foot is real, oh and that essential oils are a valid replacement for medicine.

Sometimes I think society has made it too easy for people who would normally be weeded out through natural selection, to live and propagate.
Took the time to highlight a few of your glaring errors.

No need to thank me.

And if you wish to act in support of your view of enabling societal demands to more closely follow natural selection (i.e., pure natural selection would eliminate people who think or believe the Eaarth is flat), try starting with me.

Hmm, I'd love to hear why you think those are errors. Thank you for making errors in your rebuttal. It completely proves my point.

I'm confused with that last part. Are you suggesting I eliminate you? If you are, you completely missed the point of that statement.

Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #106 on: May 23, 2017, 02:33:30 PM »
First, you need to prove the view aspect presented in Stellarium is possible, let alone correct.

It is not an arbitrary standard.

The motions of planets have been observed.

It is still speculation they actually orbit the sun.
The motion has been observed, and you can solve that path for any reference point.
Just considering the solar system, the simplest reference point is one in where the sun is fixed and the planets obit it.

So that view is indeed possible and is merely changing the observed motions into a different reference frame.

It is not speculation that they orbit the sun. That is because the orbit requires some force.
Gravity (which has been experimentally verified) provides that source and the solution which has the planets orbiting the sun.
Otherwise you need an explanation for why the sun would orbit Earth, but the other planets (some of which are closer to Earth than the sun at some points in their journey) orbit the sun instead of Earth.

I believe I clearly wrote the word,"galaxy,' in my post, yet you now write: "Apart from that you made no reference to other elements of the universe..." IF the galaxy is not referencing another element in the universe, then what is?
No. This is what you said:
That is why you just cannot plug in the math inputs and render a working and accurate rendering of the Solar System which would be visible for all to see.
So no, no mention of galaxy or other parts of the universe, just the Solar System.
You only brought that into it when you were provided with models and asked why they weren't a full model.

In fact, that original statement by you still appeared in the quote chain until this post of yours where you stripped it out.
Why was that?
Didn't you want to effectively quote yourself clearly not saying galaxy when claiming you said it?

?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4109
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #107 on: May 23, 2017, 03:59:23 PM »
Hmm, I'd love to hear why you think those are errors. Thank you for making errors in your rebuttal. It completely proves my point.
I misspelled Eaarth and left it.

Why I think think what I highlighted in red are grammatical errors?

Why don't you not just take my word for it at all and submit the post to someone you trust who has some qualifications.

I do not "prove," your point, you              .

I'm confused with that last part. Are you suggesting I eliminate you? If you are, you completely missed the point of that statement.
Well, by all means...

Feel free to elucidate us poor folk...
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4109
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #108 on: May 23, 2017, 04:07:12 PM »
Yes it is. You decided on something as your standard of proof without any kind of justification in the hope that no-one will be able to provide the thing you demand.

I am happy that the computer models I gave you work. Why is my standard of proof any worse than yours?
Can you demonstrate something as simple as the view aspect given for the model even exists?

Yes or no?

Yes or no is not arbitrary.


Nope, mathematically and empirically proven.
/quote]
It has not.

Care to identify where? You asked for a working model of the solar system, not a model of how the solar system fits in with the rest of the universe.
Where else do you think the Solar System "gallavants and traipses?"

Your living room?

Deliberately trying to set a standard you hope no-one will be able to get to.
Deliberately pointing out current technology has the clear ability to do so, yet cannot because the BS math and BS heliocentric model is just simply that...BS.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4109
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #109 on: May 23, 2017, 04:18:15 PM »
First, you need to prove the view aspect presented in Stellarium is possible, let alone correct.

It is not an arbitrary standard.

The motions of planets have been observed.

It is still speculation they actually orbit the sun.
The motion has been observed, and you can solve that path for any reference point.
Just considering the solar system, the simplest reference point is one in where the sun is fixed and the planets obit it.

So that view is indeed possible and is merely changing the observed motions into a different reference frame.
The Sun, even according to RE is not fixed, ever.
It is not speculation that they orbit the sun. That is because the orbit requires some force.
Gravity (which has been experimentally verified) provides that source and the solution which has the planets orbiting the sun.
Otherwise you need an explanation for why the sun would orbit Earth, but the other planets (some of which are closer to Earth than the sun at some points in their journey) orbit the sun instead of Earth.
No it hasn't.
I believe I clearly wrote the word,"galaxy,' in my post, yet you now write: "Apart from that you made no reference to other elements of the universe..." IF the galaxy is not referencing another element in the universe, then what is?
No. This is what you said:
That is why you just cannot plug in the math inputs and render a working and accurate rendering of the Solar System which would be visible for all to see.
So no, no mention of galaxy or other parts of the universe, just the Solar System.
You only brought that into it when you were provided with models and asked why they weren't a full model.

In fact, that original statement by you still appeared in the quote chain until this post of yours where you stripped it out.
Why was that?
Didn't you want to effectively quote yourself clearly not saying galaxy when claiming you said it?
The CGI model of the supposed Solar System, traipsing and gallavanting (sic) about the Milky Way, with all the planets maintaining elliptical orbits dutifully in tow, is what is missing.
What does that quote indicate to you?

A complete and accurate rendering of the Solar System would by necessity demonstrate a moving Sun with planets moving about in elliptical orbits.

Render that in CGI.

Get back to me with the model.

Until then, all of you are dismissed.

CHOP CHOP!!!
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

*

rabinoz

  • 24865
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #110 on: May 23, 2017, 11:01:26 PM »
The motion has been observed, and you can solve that path for any reference point.
Just considering the solar system, the simplest reference point is one in where the sun is fixed and the planets orbit it.

So that view is indeed possible and is merely changing the observed motions into a different reference frame.
The Sun, even according to RE is not fixed, ever.
JackBlack never said that the sun was fixed! Please learn to read.

Quote from: totallackey
It is not speculation that they orbit the sun. That is because the orbit requires some force.
Gravity (which has been experimentally verified) provides that source and the solution which has the planets orbiting the sun.
Otherwise you need an explanation for why the sun would orbit Earth, but the other planets (some of which are closer to Earth than the sun at some points in their journey) orbit the sun instead of Earth.
No it hasn't.
Incorrect,
both gravitation and the orbits of the planets have been verified. Your denying something means nothing.

Quote from: totallackey
A complete and accurate rendering of the Solar System would by necessity demonstrate a moving Sun with planets moving about in elliptical orbits.
Incorrect.
A model of the solar system relative the Sun, or more correctly the Solar system's "barycenter", is quite valid.
The closest celestial body of any consequence is the small star, Proxima Centauri, a red dwarf, a small low-mass star, about 4.25 light-years from the Sun.
By comparison,  the distance to the outer most planet Pluto is about 13 light hours.
But a complete model of the solar system would be near impossible, considering that there are an almost innumerable number of asteroids, roughly 10,000 of the known asteroids are Near Earth Asteroids.

But, the ability to model every last detail has no bearing on the reality of the Solar System.

What you accept or don't accept is not of any consequence.

Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #111 on: May 24, 2017, 02:12:17 AM »
The Sun, even according to RE is not fixed, ever.
Go learn what a reference point/reference frame/point of reference is.
You can use lots of things as a reference point, and not all of these are inertial.
You can have a reference frame where the sun is stationary.

It is not speculation that they orbit the sun. That is because the orbit requires some force.
Gravity (which has been experimentally verified) provides that source and the solution which has the planets orbiting the sun.
Otherwise you need an explanation for why the sun would orbit Earth, but the other planets (some of which are closer to Earth than the sun at some points in their journey) orbit the sun instead of Earth.
No it hasn't.
Yes, it has. You rejecting it doesn't magically make it no longer real.

I believe I clearly wrote the word,"galaxy,' in my post, yet you now write: "Apart from that you made no reference to other elements of the universe..." IF the galaxy is not referencing another element in the universe, then what is?
No. This is what you said:
That is why you just cannot plug in the math inputs and render a working and accurate rendering of the Solar System which would be visible for all to see.
So no, no mention of galaxy or other parts of the universe, just the Solar System.
You only brought that into it when you were provided with models and asked why they weren't a full model.

In fact, that original statement by you still appeared in the quote chain until this post of yours where you stripped it out.
Why was that?
Didn't you want to effectively quote yourself clearly not saying galaxy when claiming you said it?
The CGI model of the supposed Solar System, traipsing and gallavanting (sic) about the Milky Way, with all the planets maintaining elliptical orbits dutifully in tow, is what is missing.
What does that quote indicate to you?
That you are extremely dishonest and have no intention of admitting your mistake and are quite happy to lie to everyone to pretend you were right.

Lets take a look at that quote IN CONTEXT:
That is why you just cannot plug in the math inputs and render a working and accurate rendering of the Solar System which would be visible for all to see.
http://www.stellarium.org/
https://celestiaproject.net/
http://www.worldwidetelescope.org/
All built by plugging in the maths.
None of which provide a full model.
and with your vast experience of them, what is missing? What arbitrary standard are you applying that allows you to dismiss them as invalid?
The CGI model of the supposed Solar System, traipsing and gallavanting about the Milky Way, with all the planets maintaining elliptical orbits dutifully in tow, is what is missing.
Notice your original statement:
"That is why you just cannot plug in the math inputs and render a working and accurate rendering of the Solar System which would be visible for all to see."
No mention of galaxy at all.
You were provided models of the Solar System.
You complained saying they were incomplete.
When asked what is wrong, only then did you bring up the rest of the galaxy.
So stop lying.

A complete and accurate rendering of the Solar System would by necessity demonstrate a moving Sun with planets moving about in elliptical orbits.
No, it wouldn't.
It has no need to show the Solar System moving relative to the rest of the galaxy.
Also, you can't show it moving without some reference, like the rest of the galaxy.
So no, a complete and accurate rendering of the Solar System would not need to have the rest of the galaxy in it or the sun moving relative to the galaxy.

Render that in CGI.

Get back to me with the model.

Until then, all of you are dismissed.
No. That was not your objection. Show how these models are wrong or admit your mistake.