Ethical scientists profess pursuit of the truth in matters concerning their field.
Not necessarily using CGI, especially not impossible ones like you demand. As such, your argument remains as a non-sequiter.
An admission FINALLY no scientifically accurate model exists of the Solar System!!!
There you go lying again.
It isn't the solar system, it is the galaxy, where the models are incomplete.
Why does science preach "We know! Trust us!", when it is obvious they do not?
They don't.
They admit there is a lot they don't know.
marko is one who comes to mind...
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.
Notice how he said simulations, not CGI renderings?
Notice how he said running on super computers, indicating a likely significant computational cost?
Does not sound like, "...it explains observations well..." or, "...makes useful and accurate predictions..." Sounds to me as if it is a heaping pile of dung that you cannot possibly defend with any rational arguments.
Sure, because that statement did not make any comment regarding predictions or observations that have been made.
As such, it didn't say it doesn't explain observations or it doesn't make useful and accurate predictions.
So yes, it does sound like you are heapings piles of crap which you cannot possible defend (and projecting your own inadequacies onto others).
In other words, you have nothing to contribute to the topic at hand.
No, in other words, your argument is pure crap.
The lack of a CGI model doesn't show the model is wrong.
Yes it is.
If you are just going to continue to baselessly assert crap, I will continue to dismiss it.
You are yet to justify your argument at all. Until you do all you have is a baseless assertion.
There is no logical connection between your premise and conclusion.
I will just skip the rest of your pathetic baseless assertions, just stick another dismissal of it in there if you need it.
Yes it is.
CGI exists strictly because of numbers.
Yes, CGI exists because of numbers, but that doesn't mean the rendering includes the math behind it.
So what do you want, the math or the CGI? They are 2 very different things.
No it would not.
How do you plan on depicting movement and orbit without it being to scale?
I can go to any number of models you declare to be sufficient (even though they are not based on Newton/Kepler/Einstein, etc., and view them in their supposed orbits.
I just want the Sun to be placed into motion.
Again, what you want is irrelevant.
You wanting something doesn't mean scientists are going to make it for you and the lack of it existing doesn't mean the models are wrong.
What utility is there in an animation of the solar system which just slides across the screen? That is effectively what you are asking for now.
Your argument is now effectively:
"I WANT THIS!!!!! BITCH MOAN BITCH BITCH MOAN!!!!
IT DOESN"T EXIST!!! WAH WAH WAH!!!""
YOUR WRONG!!!!!"
People not giving you want you want doesn't mean they are wrong.
The milky way is roughly 100 000 light years across (it varies depending on how you define the edge). This is ~ 9.5E+17 km.
Thus to put this on a standard HD screen, 1920 pixels wide (so it would truncate the image vertically), the orbit of Neptune (the most distant planet), which is roughly 9 billion km wide, would appear as a mere ~2E-5 pixels. i.e. you can't see it.
Worthless excuse.
Yes, a worthless excuse from you (that does seem to be all you can provide), being completely unable to providing a justification for why this CGI rendering of yours should exist or why the scale doesn't make it impossible.
I can see the false model in complete motion, let’s see the correct version.
In motion compared to what?
It could just as easily be stationary (with the planets still circling) with the trails shooting off.
Regardless, at that scale it would be of absolutely no utility.
There is so much whine here, please pass the cheese and the crackers.
No thanks. I would rather you stop your whining.
What you want is quite irrelevant unless you are the one making it.
The issue is what scientists want. Such a model would be quite useless to them.
Written like just like the church of science lackey you are.
No, written like an the intelligent individual I am, and dismissed like the pathetic fool you are.
Except all the planets would be inside the sun if you enlarge it enough to make it visible.
No they would not.
If you want to see the sun's motion in the Milky way, they would be, as I showed above.
Again, they would be out of scale due to the fact Kepler/Newton/Einstein, etc., are wrong.
No, they would be completely out of scale due to the scales involved making it impossible to show them too scale.
Non topical BS entered into the record by you.
You are on a forum to debate the flat Earth.
If you think the FE is non-topical to your thread that means your thread is non-topical to this forum.
AKA – “I need to switch the subject!”
No, AKA, pointing your desperation with your past pathetic attempts which have repeatedly failed and thus your need to try and shift the topic to pathetic arguments like your OP, as you are unable to use anything rationale to justify your position.
You are, without a doubt, the most lying bastard I have ever dealt with in any form.
Then I take it you haven't looked in the mirror, or looked at any other dishonest person?
BS. Again, a model as I have asked for, admittedly does not exist, yet you are here, claiming it cannot exist, but not because the math or science is wrong, but because of other, non-existent constraints…
There you go lying again.
What you first asked for cannot exist due to real constraints.
What you have tried changing it to can exist, but would be worthless.
You have even had to amend your request so you are no longer asking for the real deal, but a manipulated version of it.
Manipulated only to the extent it places the Sun in motion, because that is what science claims is happening.
No, that isn't the manipulation.
The manipulation would be completely changing the size of things to make it so you can see it, which requires fundamentally changing the orbits.
But according to science, that is not all the movement taking place.
Because it uses a different reference frame. Guess what? the movements taking place depends on the reference frame chosen.
You will then be left without a tit or cock to suckle because any attempt to render it will demonstrate the entire to be a mathematical fraud!
No, as I said before, any attempt to render it would result in you being unable to see it.
You are the one who wrote the quote.
And you are the one that took it out of context to blatantly misrepresent the meaning.
That makes you the dishonest scum, not me.
Admitting science does not really know, yet presents the information as 100 percent factual.
There you go lying again.
Again, admitting JackAssBlack not in pursuit of the truth…
Nope, pointing out you are not in pursuit of the truth.
You are asking for a manipulated model which does depict reality.
Any model submission would of course be presented with the inputs.
No it wouldn't.
You asked for a CGI rendering.
When you go watch a CGI rendinger in cinemas, do they provide all the data used to make it? No.
Are you dense?
Have you attended any school?
Remember, you wrote specifically, “The real deal is worthless…”
And there you go quote mining again.
The real deal, i.e. a real depiction of the solar system's motion through the Milky way, showing the orbits of the planets, is worthless as you would be completely unable to see the motion of the planets.
So, it only follows if helical orbits were depicted you would defend the model as accurate,,,
No it doesn't.
But then again you seem to fail horribly at logical arguments and can't seem to figure out what conclusions are actually valid.
Do you think cat's licking themselves mean fish swim through their air?
That is the level of "logic" you are presenting.
BS. The Sun would be at the center of the planets.
But not the centre of the model, thus it is not a heliocentric model.
And admission heliocentricity does not exist?
There you going lying again.
An admission that heliocentricity is a model of the solar system, not a model of the galaxy/universe.
And to that I say:
No thanks, I don't eat crap.
And the meek shall inherit the earth...
And there you go with more delusional BS to try and pat yourself on the back for you own stupidity and for how pathetic you are.
You whining and bitching over matters non-substantive to the debate is childish and only serves to solidify the weakness of your position.
Yes, like you bitching and whining over the non-existence of a CGI rendering which cannot exist due to the scales involved.
Again, if the model I presented here depicting the vortex model actually depicted a helix model, you would be hooping and hollering in support of the model!
Again, no we wouldn't.
How about you stop lying about us just because you are unable to make a rational argument?
Make the Sun move in those simulations.
Load up the simulation, grab your monitor, and move it yourself.
I has nothing to do with my entertainment.
Really?
So far the only justification for why it should be made is because you want it.
It has plenty to do with "truth."
No, it has nothing to do with truth.
You are asking for a CGI rendering which does not depict reality, because you don't want it to scale as that would mean you can't see it.
I noticed your reliance on the word, "useless," yet again to to describe your version and view of/on science.
Thank you for at least being honest.
No, to describe your request, not science.
Perhaps you should try being honest for once in your pathetic existence?
I would read the above reply and seriously rethink who is getting pwned here... 
You, repeatedly.
You have completely failed to defend your position while numerous people have repeatedly refuted it.
You not getting what you want doesn't mean science is wrong.
None of the reasons you have offered are legitimate.
None of the reasons you have offered for modern science being wrong are legitimate.
Your entire argument is based upon them not giving you what you want.
yet the long range satellites and deep space probes work with the knowledge we have and we should just have faith... wtf?
No, not faith. Acceptance of what the evidence shows.
These deep space probes are quite close to the sun such that the majority of the galaxy is quite irrelevant as we can just deal with their motion relative to the sun.
Do you even think about what you post?
Do you even think, at all?
Poll