Poll

Why is there no accurate CGI rendering of the Sun in motion with the planets remaining in helical orbit?

Costs too much money
Newton/Kepler/Einstein, et. al., calculations, if used in a CGI, would show the model has been wrong all along...
Newton is wrong, Kepler is wrong, Einstein is wrong...
Scaling (despite the ability of computers to visually render large objects as small while retaining fundamental, necessary properties)
Other

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity

  • 266 Replies
  • 8834 Views
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« on: January 21, 2018, 04:42:49 AM »
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:

2) Newton is wrong;

3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.

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...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

*

Here to laugh at you

  • 1727
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2018, 05:06:01 AM »
Please present your flat Earth map.
Yes, you

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2018, 05:10:40 AM »
Please present your flat Earth map.
Please stick to the topic at hand.

That topic being the heliocentric model.

I know you have difficulty doing this and it will be hard for you, but make your best effort.
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2018, 05:46:55 AM »
Newton's Laws of Motion/The Laws of Thermodynamics/etc.

Given that science claims the Sun is speeding along at roughly 483,000 MPH, with planets, their moons, asteroids, comets, etc., dutifully in tow,
That is not a necessary part of the solar system.
What is not a necessary part?
The closest known star to the solar system is some 4 light years away, so that the effect of objects outside the solar system is quite negligible in such a simulation.
Negligible or not, there is still an effect and all things need to be accounted for.

By the way, where would the "The Laws of Thermodynamics" come into such a simulation?
Why would they not?
No, Mr T. Lackey, you know very well that science does NOT "claim that Kepler and Newton have all the math figured out".
They most certainly do.

For what we claim to know about the Solar System we credit both Kepler and Newton for the math.

It is math for crying out loud!
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...

Then by adding the calculations/formulas/math of Newton, add more planets...
And for a precise simulation, Einstein's GR would have to be included or the precession of the planetary orbits will be very slightly in error.
Okay, add for Einstein then...
In any case, the total number of objects within the solar system makes a precise simulation impossible...
Bullshit.
So, try again.
You first.
Watch it, or we'll demand an accurate simulation of your flat earth which explains everything from lunar phases, solar and lunar eclipses down to sunrises, sunset and the path of the sun. We know that you can't do that! CHANGE THE SUBJECT BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO!
FTFY.

No need to thank me!
« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 05:58:30 AM by totallackey »
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

*

54N

  • 173
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2018, 07:53:34 AM »
CGI rendering of the heliocentric model (depicting the complete revolutionary movement of the Sun as it travels throughout the Milky Way)

Why would you trust CGI as proof of anything?     I've seen posts where you decry actual photographs of earth as CGI,  and therefore proof of nothing.


*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 597
  • Physical Comedian
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2018, 08:00:54 AM »
Scale represents considerable difficulty. Any scale large enough to demonstrate the Sun 's movement around the Galaxy is going to render the Sun as a place marker as the Sun would be too small to see; never mind the planets.
Nullius in Verba

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4041
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2018, 08:03:19 AM »
The accepted RE galactic orbit of the solar system is based on helices.

However, this model is totally incompatible with Kepler's laws:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1825249#msg1825249

"The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to Sir Oliver Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values."

A solar system in motion with respect to the Vega star would be wholly incompatible with Kepler's first law, since, within that frame of reference, this motion (the circular helices on a right cylinder) must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.

This is why heliocentrism is not a viable option, as envisioned by the RE:

In the middle of all sits Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe: Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles’ Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne ruling his children the planets which circle round him. The Earth has the Moon at her service. As Aristotle says, in his On Animals, the Moon has the closest relationship with the Earth. Meanwhile the Earth conceives by the Sun, and becomes pregnant with an annual rebirth (De Revolutionibus, Of the Order of the Heavenly Bodies 10).

Who alone appears, by virtue of his dignity and power, suited…and worthy to become the home of God himself, not to say the first mover” (On the Motion of Mars, Prague, 1609, Chapter 4 - Kepler describing the Sun).

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2018, 08:27:45 AM »
Why would you trust CGI as proof of anything?
The math at the base of the rendering would be easily attributed and could be vetted for accuracy in calculation.
I've seen posts where you decry actual photographs of earth as CGI,  and therefore proof of nothing.
Yep, surely have. And if the math is incorrect in any instance of a submitted rendering, I will do the very same.
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2018, 08:30:37 AM »
Scale represents considerable difficulty. Any scale large enough to demonstrate the Sun 's movement around the Galaxy is going to render the Sun as a place marker as the Sun would be too small to see; never mind the planets.
Come now...

Please reconsider your entire basis of argumentation.

There is a CGI rendering presented in this very thread that shows the Sun and planets in motion...

All that is asked for is one which renders the movement according to Newton/Kepler/et.al...
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 597
  • Physical Comedian
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2018, 08:36:55 AM »
Scale represents considerable difficulty. Any scale large enough to demonstrate the Sun 's movement around the Galaxy is going to render the Sun as a place marker as the Sun would be too small to see; never mind the planets.
Come now...

Please reconsider your entire basis of argumentation.

There is a CGI rendering presented in this very thread that shows the Sun and planets in motion...

All that is asked for is one which renders the movement according to Newton/Kepler/et.al...

That model does not? (Leave poor Kepler out of this)
Nullius in Verba

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2018, 09:29:27 AM »
Please present a correct CGI rendering of the Solar System in its travels throughout the galaxy.
How do you propose to test the accuracy of such a rendering?
Why would you trust CGI as proof of anything?
The math at the base of the rendering would be easily attributed and could be vetted for accuracy in calculation.
I've seen posts where you decry actual photographs of earth as CGI,  and therefore proof of nothing.
Yep, surely have. And if the math is incorrect in any instance of a submitted rendering, I will do the very same.
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2018, 09:53:45 AM »
Scale represents considerable difficulty. Any scale large enough to demonstrate the Sun 's movement around the Galaxy is going to render the Sun as a place marker as the Sun would be too small to see; never mind the planets.
Come now...

Please reconsider your entire basis of argumentation.

There is a CGI rendering presented in this very thread that shows the Sun and planets in motion...

All that is asked for is one which renders the movement according to Newton/Kepler/et.al...

That model does not? (Leave poor Kepler out of this)
Not according to the person who created the model.

The person who created the model did not rely on Newton or Kepler, nor does he believe current science provides an accurate basis for depicting the movement.

And why should I leave Kepler out of it?

Here is a critigue of the CGI rendering I provided:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html

" I’ve been getting lots of tweets and email from folks linking to a slick-looking video, a computer animation showing the motion of the planets around the Sun as the Sun orbits around the Milky Way Galaxy. It’s a very pretty video with compelling music and well-done graphics.

However, there’s a problem with it: It’s wrong. And not just superficially; it’s deeply wrong, based on a very wrong premise. "
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2018, 10:22:47 AM »
The accepted RE galactic orbit of the solar system is based on helices.

However, this model is totally incompatible with Kepler's laws:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1825249#msg1825249

"The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to Sir Oliver Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values."

A solar system in motion with respect to the Vega star would be wholly incompatible with Kepler's first law, since, within that frame of reference, this motion (the circular helices on a right cylinder) must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.

This is why heliocentrism is not a viable option, as envisioned by the RE:

In the middle of all sits Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe: Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles’ Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne ruling his children the planets which circle round him. The Earth has the Moon at her service. As Aristotle says, in his On Animals, the Moon has the closest relationship with the Earth. Meanwhile the Earth conceives by the Sun, and becomes pregnant with an annual rebirth (De Revolutionibus, Of the Order of the Heavenly Bodies 10).

Who alone appears, by virtue of his dignity and power, suited…and worthy to become the home of God himself, not to say the first mover” (On the Motion of Mars, Prague, 1609, Chapter 4 - Kepler describing the Sun).
Thank you sandokhan for your well researched contribution to this thread and prior work on this topic.

It is greatly appreciated!
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2018, 10:34:19 AM »
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:

2) Newton is wrong;

3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.



Why do you think existence, or lack, of a CGI rendering has anything to do with whether something is true or not?

Quote
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?"

1) Because if done to scale, nothing could be seen. If earth were represented by one pixel, the sun would be a circle about 100 pixels in diameter some 11,000 pixels away, the moon would be about 1/4 of a pixel in diameter, and Jupiter would be 5 pixels in diameter located about 60,000 pixels from the sun.

2) There's no real need to put forth the effort, especially in light of 1), but if you want to do so, knock yourself out.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37540
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2018, 10:42:10 AM »
Why would you trust CGI as proof of anything?
The math at the base of the rendering would be easily attributed and could be vetted for accuracy in calculation.
Just because the math might work, how do you know that the math is an accurate representation of reality?  It's not as if you can go outside of the solar system to observe its actual movement through the galaxy.

Also, why are you demanding a mathematical model of the RE solar system/galaxy when FE'ers refuse to put forth a mathematical model of the flat earth system?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4041
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2018, 10:46:43 AM »
No RE astrophysicist can present a CGI of the galactic orbit of the solar system based on Kepler's first law and Newton's law of attractive gravitation.

Kepler's first law applies to A PLANAR SYSTEM.

The galactic orbit is a three dimensional path in the shape of a helix.

Here is the equivalence of the first law of Kepler and Newton's law of gravitation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1992933#msg1992933

If one goes, the other one goes too.

This has been one of the most difficult issues for the RE for the past two hundred years: how to account for the fact that the Sun undergoes, under heliocentrism, a helical path in space, together with the planets. Obviously, in this case, Kepler's first law is rendered useless.

"I have known, too, for a long time, that we have no arguments for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasp’s nest. You will but bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude. If once a famous astronomer arises against the present conception, I will communicate, too, my observations; but to come forth as the first against opinions which the world has become fond of – I don’t feel the courage.”"

A. von Humboldt


when FE'ers refuse to put forth a mathematical model of the flat earth system?

On the contrary, I state very clearly that the mathematical model of the flat earth is based totally on the original Maxwell equations, on the Whittaker biodirectional longitudinal scalar waves and on the fact that the Tunguska explosion represents an experimental confirmation of the global Aharonov-Bohm effect.

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2018, 10:47:56 AM »
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:

2) Newton is wrong;

3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.



Why do you think existence, or lack, of a CGI rendering has anything to do with whether something is true or not?
Because we have so much trash renderings claiming to be the real deal.

And my point is not a non-sequitur.

Please research your claims prior to classification or posting.

A non sequitur in this case would be asking for a CGI rendering of your dog taking a dump in support of heliocentricity.

Quote
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?"
1) Because if done to scale, nothing could be seen. If earth were represented by one pixel, the sun would be a circle about 100 pixels in diameter some 11,000 pixels away, the moon would be about 1/4 of a pixel in diameter, and Jupiter would be 5 pixels in diameter located about 60,000 pixels from the sun.
I am not concerned with scaling.

I am concerned about movement.

Computers can still apply the accurate numbers concerning mass and movement, while rendering the trace of the orbital path of each planet, as demonstrated in all these trash renderings.
2) There's no real need to put forth the effort, especially in light of 1)
Number one is a waste of typewritten space due to the fact you have no real argument as evidenced by my reply.
, but if you want to do so, knock yourself out.
Thanks for trying.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 11:03:07 AM by totallackey »
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2018, 10:51:52 AM »
Why would you trust CGI as proof of anything?
The math at the base of the rendering would be easily attributed and could be vetted for accuracy in calculation.
Just because the math might work, how do you know that the math is an accurate representation of reality?  It's not as if you can go outside of the solar system to observe its actual movement through the galaxy.
What?

Are you admitting science has no clue the Solar System exists as presented in school/university textbooks?
Also, why are you demanding a mathematical model of the RE solar system/galaxy when FE'ers refuse to put forth a mathematical model of the flat earth system?
Off topic claims and conjecture shall not be entertained.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 11:02:30 AM by totallackey »
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37540
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2018, 11:06:08 AM »
Why would you trust CGI as proof of anything?
The math at the base of the rendering would be easily attributed and could be vetted for accuracy in calculation.
Just because the math might work, how do you know that the math is an accurate representation of reality?  It's not as if you can go outside of the solar system to observe its actual movement through the galaxy.
What?

Are you admitting science has no clue the Solar System exists?
Not at all.  In fact, I'm fairly certain that there are already a number of solar system and galaxy simulations running on various super computers.  Maybe you should check with the astrophysics community for details.

I'm just asking how you would go about vetting those simulations and comparing them to reality.

Also, why are you demanding a mathematical model of the RE solar system/galaxy when FE'ers refuse to put forth a mathematical model of the flat earth system?
Off topic claims and conjecture shall not be entertained.
No claims or conjecture.  Just pointing out your hypocrisy.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #19 on: January 21, 2018, 11:26:01 AM »
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:

2) Newton is wrong;

3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.

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?"

I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the flat earth model (depicting the complete path of the sun as it moves above the earth) to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie:

2) Rowbotham is wrong;

3) Everything John Davis says is wrong.

Run along now, peabrain.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2018, 12:07:17 PM »
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:

2) Newton is wrong;

3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.



Why do you think existence, or lack, of a CGI rendering has anything to do with whether something is true or not?
Because we have so much trash renderings claiming to be the real deal.

And my point is not a non-sequitur.

Please research your claims prior to classification or posting.

A non sequitur in this case would be asking for a CGI rendering of your dog taking a dump in support of heliocentricity.

No, the non-sequiturs in this case are claims like "there's no good CGI rendering of the solar system moving around the center of the galaxy, therefore the laws of thermodynamics are wrong", etc. The correctness (or lack thereof) of thermodynamics or Newton's laws of motion have nothing to do with the existence (or lack) of some particular graphic rendering.

Quote
Quote
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?"
1) Because if done to scale, nothing could be seen. If earth were represented by one pixel, the sun would be a circle about 100 pixels in diameter some 11,000 pixels away, the moon would be about 1/4 of a pixel in diameter, and Jupiter would be 5 pixels in diameter located about 60,000 pixels from the sun.
I am not concerned with scaling.

You requested a correct rendering in the original thread:

Please present a correct CGI rendering of the Solar System in its travels throughout the galaxy.

In fact, it's specified (IN ALL CAPS!!) in that thread title.

You want it to be 'correct', but not to scale? If it's not to scale, it's not entirely correct.

Quote
I am concerned about movement.

If you want the model to account for motion due to the effects of all known solar system objects as well as all known stars, it is going to be costly to produce. If you want the model to account for all solar system objects (known and not yet known) as well as all stars (ditto) it would obviously be impossible. You still haven't explained why this would be worth the effort or why you think the laws of physics hang on its existence.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2018, 12:27:20 PM »
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.

Lack of a CGI rendering doesn't mean anything you have claimed. Try making a rational argument for once rather than just spouting BS.

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. You cannot easily explain it in a picture.
For that, so what you see the sun moving without any valid reference with nothing drawn to scale.
What is that meant to show?
How would you tell if it is the "real deal"?
The curvature of the orbit around the galactic centre (including the up-down part) would be too small to notice.
For the planets to be drawn to scale you wouldn't be able to see them.
To get any idea of the size of the orbit you wouldn't be able to see the sun.

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.

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2018, 02:07:30 PM »
Not at all.  In fact, I'm fairly certain that there are already a number of solar system and galaxy simulations running on various super computers.  Maybe you should check with the astrophysics community for details.

I'm just asking how you would go about vetting those simulations and comparing them to reality.
Any vetting and analysis would examine the math utilized to create the CGI rendering.
No claims or conjecture.  Just pointing out your hypocrisy.
Off topic discussion shall be ignored.
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2018, 02:13:34 PM »
I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the flat earth model (depicting the complete path of the sun as it moves above the earth) to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie:

2) Rowbotham is wrong;

3) Everything John Davis says is wrong.

Run along now, peabrain.
Off topic.

Absolutely no substantive/meaningful content/contribution noted.

Please create your own thread the forum participants can ignore and quit relying on me (who created this popular thread) for attention.
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2018, 02:20:18 PM »
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:

2) Newton is wrong;

3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.
Logical fallacy of Argumentum Ex Silentio (Argument from Silence)

Conclusion does not follow from premise.

Thanks for playing. Please try again!


Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2018, 02:30:38 PM »
I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the flat earth model (depicting the complete path of the sun as it moves above the earth) to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie:

2) Rowbotham is wrong;

3) Everything John Davis says is wrong.

Run along now, peabrain.
Off topic.

Absolutely no substantive/meaningful content/contribution noted.

Please create your own thread the forum participants can ignore and quit relying on me (who created this popular thread) for attention.

I think you've just shown how thick you are. My post was a comment on how absence of a CGI model of anything is not proof one way or the other, and how if your argument is valid against a round earth, it would also be valid against a flat earth.
But I guess it's just too subtle for someone of your level to pick up.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

?

Ising

  • 125
  • I can't hear you over the sound of my awesomeness
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2018, 02:31:28 PM »
I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the flat earth model (depicting the complete path of the sun as it moves above the earth) to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie:

2) Rowbotham is wrong;

3) Everything John Davis says is wrong.

Run along now, peabrain.
Off topic.

Absolutely no substantive/meaningful content/contribution noted.

Please create your own thread the forum participants can ignore and quit relying on me (who created this popular thread) for attention.

He was pointing out the fact that the arguments you brought up to discredit RE theory can easily be used against FE theory as well. If that is not meaningful content, then I fail to see how anything you said here is.

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #27 on: January 21, 2018, 02:31:38 PM »
No, the non-sequiturs in this case are claims like "there's no good CGI rendering of the solar system moving around the center of the galaxy, therefore the laws of thermodynamics are wrong", etc. The correctness (or lack thereof) of thermodynamics or Newton's laws of motion have nothing to do with the existence (or lack) of some particular graphic rendering.
Yes, they certainly do.

Mainstream science is clear in their reporting.

Mainstream science states the Solar System model as known fact, indisputable and has going on for nearly 100 years.

The lack of a CGI rendering is telling evidence that stated model is incorrect.
You requested a correct rendering in the original thread:

In fact, it's specified (IN ALL CAPS!!) in that thread title.

You want it to be 'correct', but not to scale? If it's not to scale, it's not entirely correct.
In regard to movement and depiction of the orbits, yes it should be correct.

The CGI rendering of the model I presented is false.

Had it been correct, based on Newton//Kepler/Einstein, et. al., there is zero doubt in my mindyou would have presented as a correct model!

So, kindly stop posting strawmen.
If you want the model to account for motion due to the effects of all known solar system objects as well as all known stars, it is going to be costly to produce.
Aside from the fact I do not believe the argument based on cost, it is just a claim.

Please render a citation.
If you want the model to account for all solar system objects (known and not yet known) as well as all stars (ditto) it would obviously be impossible.
I do not believe it to be impossible. I believe it to be 100 percent possible.

So do other RE adherents.

Argue this point with them.
You still haven't explained why this would be worth the effort
Yes I have.
... or why you think the laws of physics hang on its existence.
Not so much the Laws of Physics but rather universal gravitation and Einstein...and/or heliocentricity.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 03:19:56 PM by totallackey »
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2018, 02:53:00 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 03:33:40 PM by totallackey »
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2018, 03:14:13 PM »
Logical fallacy of Argumentum Ex Silentio (Argument from Silence)

Conclusion does not follow from premise.

Thanks for playing. Please try again!
Conclusion does absolutely follow from premise.

Demonstrate other possibilities if you can.
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!