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:
This has already been explained to you, either it is a cartoon, which puts things massively out of scale, or you wouldn't be able to see the sun as it is too small.
One, I have stated I am not so much concerned with accurate scaling in the visual depiction,
Through the use of computers an object could be assigned a certain visual size and a certain mass based on factual math.
The orbits could be traced and depicted, allowing for the actual mass of the object in that orbit with absolutely no other depiction other than an accurate label.
Lack of a CGI rendering doesn't mean anything you have claimed. Try making a rational argument for once rather than just spouting BS.
Argumentum Lasto Resortium noted...
If humans can manufacture trash like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=0jHsq36_NTU
Then why can we not post the real deal, based on "real science?"
Because the real deal is worthless.
A person in pursuit of truth would not utter this statement.
And I will adopt this statement as my signature from this point forward, living as eternal testimony of your true character.
You cannot easily explain it in a picture.
This is malarkey, right?
Textbooks have done so for years.
Free body diagrams in physics exist for that very purpose.
Stop joking or get off the thread.
For that, so what you see the sun moving without any valid reference with nothing drawn to scale.
The Sun is moving is the purpose of the CGI rendering.
What is that meant to show?
That the Sun can move with the planets dutifully in tow.
How would you tell if it is the "real deal"?
I would gain the aid and assistance of friends capable of mathematical analysis to verify the inputs utilized in the modeling were accurate and based on Newton/Einstein/Kepler, et.al.
The curvature of the orbit around the galactic centre (including the up-down part) would be too small to notice.
Funny, the guy from Salon who put the kibosh on the vortex model shows a picture of the supposed Sun's orbit around the galactic centre.
For the planets to be drawn to scale you wouldn't be able to see them.
Again, the orbits need only be depicted.
And if the model I presented was actually based off Kepler/Newton/Einstein, et.al., you would be on here supporting it against any attack that brought up the words "scale," in terms of false rendering.
To get any idea of the size of the orbit you wouldn't be able to see the sun.
Further squirming noted.
In particular, Kepler's Laws (as have been hammered into your brain time and time again) is only an approximation that applies for one planet and a massive sun.
Yep, you can start by showing a CGI rendering of just one planet and one Sun.
Go ahead and show how a Solar System of just one planet/one sun moves through a galaxy...
There you go not understanding.
What part of "one planet and a massive sun" do you not understand?
Where was as part of a galaxy in that?
NO WHERE!!!
It works as a solution to a 2 body problem. As soon as you introduce a third body (such as the multitude of stars in the milky way) it is no longer a 2 body problem.
I understand perfectly.
I understand what I am asking for.
I understand you cannot provide it.
Have a nice day.