You claiming the renderings are impossible is unsubstantiated garbage.
Nope. You ignoring the justification doesn't magically make it disappear.
I have explained how the scales make it impossible.
Where did I ask for a galaxy in motion?
You asked for the motion of the solar system through the galaxy. That is a model of the galaxy, not the solar system.
For the most part they do, especially when it comes to the Solar System.
Yes, they admit they know a lot, not everything.
Yep. Which means a break down of the calculations, translate to the appropriate coding, plug a monitor into a the appropriate jack, and VOILA! Cost taken care of!
No, you just magically ignore the cost.
You are aware rendering something that complicated would also have a large computational cost.
And guess what? You wouldn't be able to see anything.
You either need to take the data from there, or the calculations from there, manipulate the calculations/data to produce the kind of images you want which means it will no longer be an accurate simulation, set it up for rendering and then render it.
The entirety of the post I was addressing was a huge example of cognitive dissonance on the part of A2O...
There you go lying again.
It shows either the model is wrong or the math is wrong.
Or it shows people haven't bothered making a CGI rendering.
Try again.
All written without any substance except, "NO U!"
If you ignore all the substance it sure looks like that.
The simple fact is your entire argument consists of unsubstantiated claims, leaps of logic and ignoring counter arguments.
I have stated my position quite clearly in the thread.
No you haven't.
You have asked several different things making it quite vague as to what you actually want. It is almost like you don't want any of it and just want an excuse to say its all wrong.
You are left making excuses, engaging in obfuscation, equivocation, crying, "MOMMY!!!", and even stating, "It does not matter what you want," in response.
You mean making rational arguments to show why your position is flawed, pointing out your claims are unsubstantiated and your arguments make no sense.
Yes, I do state it doesn't matter what you want, because you not getting what you want doesn't mean the model is wrong, especially when you are unable to provide any utility to what you are asking for.
How do you plan on depicting movement and orbit without it being to scale?
Already demonstrated to be a line of inquiry to which any answer would be dismissed as illegitimate, as you really do not care about a pursuit of truth in the matter.
You mean already demonstrated to be a question you can't answer because it shows the stupidity and dishonesty of your request, which shows the illegitimacy of your entire inquiry which lacks any pursuit of truth.
Again, you stating something is impossible in and of itself? Sorry, no reason to believe your claim or even trust what you write.
Yes, I am stating something is impossible due to the scales involved.
Perhaps if you started reading what I said rather than dismiss it you would have the reason to believe what I claim as I justified it.
Did not ask for a stationary rendering.
There you go ignoring the point again.
By making it a scale where you can see the orbit of the planets there will be no actual indication that the system is moving rather than the virtual camera being the one moving.
You cannot possibly claim intellectual superiority when you cannot, with the same statement, type that statement in a way that makes sense.
Sure I can. People make typos quite frequently.
I am just saying I am intelligent, not perfect.
Even a rock is intellectually superior to you.
Again, you making a claim? I don't think so...
Your entire argument is just you making a baseless claim.
Meanwhile I make claims and back them up.
Me making the claim is not a reason to dismiss it. Try again.
I like my characterization better...seems a little more accurate...
To your delusional mind perhaps, but by an objective measure your characterisation is so inaccurate it is pathetic.
The context remains for all to see.
Yes, but not in your signature.
If you wanted to present it accurately you could by simply paraphrasing what I said into a more honest depiction:
A CGI simulation of the motion of the planets through the galaxy depicting it in reality would be worthless as it is unable to show the motion of the planets due to the scales involved.
But no, you don't want to do that, as that doesn't make people look bad, so you need to blatantly misrepresent them.
The models presented do not show the reality of the Sun in motion, yet you claim that is good enough...
No, I claim it is good enough for what you want as you are no longer asking for the reality of the sun in motion.
Do not presume to lecture me or even try to label me as a person not in pursuit of truth.
I will label you as a person not in pursuit of truth as your actions have made that quite clear.
Your presence on the thread, defending inaccurate models
Where have I been defending inaccurate models?
Do you mean where I pointed out several flaws in them?
You might want to learn what defending means.
failing to depict the full motion of the Solar System throughout the galaxy, clearly demonstrates the lying asswipe you currently are and will always be.
Really?
Me not showing that is impossible and explaining why it is impossible makes me a liar?
You should really learn some logic so you stop spouting such nonsensical crap.
You are conflating science fiction with textbook science?
No. You are conflating a CGI rendering with the math behind it.
Any institution of higher learning would demand the inputs and any honest scientist would openly and honestly present the inputs...
You are not an institution of higher learning.
I think I summed up your views Jack.
No, you blatantly lied about them.
Oh, and your essential argument that a CGI rendering doesn't exist = Too expensive...
Nope, not my argument at all.
My argument is essentially that a CGI rendering of the planets' motion through the galaxy would by unable to show the planets' motion through the galaxy due to the scales involved which would make it worthless.
Have one on me, next time you go out!
Sure, send me a credit card.