Explain this to me.........

I demand that these so-called "scientists" (if they're that good) provide me with an animated CGI model of the solar system that not only is to scale, but is 1:1 on a distance scale AND doesn't have that speeded up nonsense that fools everyone and must RUN IN REAL TIME. If they can't, they're clearly incapable and incompetent and are just lying.

Quote from: Solarwind on March 03, 2020, 05:43:09 AM

Quote

That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...

Where does it say it doesn't?

It says it doesn't when it doesn't say it does.

If you actually care to do just about 30 seconds of research, you would see that model is Newtonian/Kelparian. Just click on the 'about' link.
The ephemeris provided by this site (which include coordinates, distances from Earth and Sun, estimated magnitude and, for comets, time to perihelion) are obtained from the JPL Horizons service.

Then go check out the JPL Horizons service, it's all there in the documentation.

So when you make a claim "That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein..." please try and back it up with some facts. A step you often skip over.

Quote from: Solarwind on March 03, 2020, 05:36:08 AM

Quote

Post a link to one that will render a Solar System in motion.

OK here's one...
https://theskylive.com/3dsolarsystem

Ok, no it's not...
Does that show the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?

No...it doesn't.

Try again...

That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...

There are numerous simulations of the planetary motion relative to the Sun.
Why would anyone want an accurate simulation "that shows the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?"

If you want one, YOU get the code for an "open-source" planetary motion simulator and modify it to allow for the Solar System's motion around the supermassive black hole, SagA*.

Try again...
That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...

How do you know that The Sky 3D Solar System Simulator doesn't use "use math by Newton"? Have you examined the code?

But it wouldn't use and "math by Kepler" because Kepler's laws only apply to a two-body system.
I doubt that a freebie like that would use Einstein's GR because on the screen you could never tell the difference between using Newton's Laws and GR.

But here is an "open-source" simulator for you:
A brief introduction: jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator, introduction
An example of jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator: jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator
And a brief description of how it works:

Building jsOrrery, a Javascript / WebGL Solar System
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Velocity
The goal of the project was to simulate the Solar System by calculating the gravitational forces, so the results given by the orbital elements were just the original state of the system at the start of simulation. Now that I had the right positions for the planets, I had to find what their velocities were at that position. The gravitational forces constantly influence the velocity vector of each planet, which makes them have a curved trajectory instead of going straight, so in order to start an animation, I had to know what was the velocity vector to act upon.

My first instinct was to calculate velocity by differentiating positions at different times. After all, velocity is exactly that : the difference between the positions of an object at the start and end of a time interval. If the calculations of orbital elements gave an accurate position, there is no reason why I couldnt get an accurate difference between two positions, even with a small time increment. I figured that a single one second interval would get me a reasonably accurate velocity reading, no need to perform a complex integration. One second at that scale is small enough to be considered instantaneous.

The result was satisfactory, except for one thing. In my Solar Sytem, I included the orbit of Halley's comet. As you may know, its orbit is in the shape of an elongated ellipse: it is highly eccentric. Eccentricity is the parameter that describes the shape of the orbit, with 0 being circular and augmenting towards 1 for flatter ellipses. One of the effects of having an eccentric orbit is that the calculations of the orbital elements become less accurate. It's not a big problem when you want an approximate position, but velocities cannot be inferred from inacurrate positions. So Halley's comet wasn't giving a damn about its trajectory, getting the hell out away in the universe.

Fortunately, there is a principle of physics that was on my side, and permits the calculation of the speed of an orbiting body from its position only : the vis-viva equation. But speed is a scalar, whereas velocity is a vector, so with vis-viva I had the length of the velocity, not its orientation. Further calculations were needed to get the orientation as well, and I ended up with a pretty good system for calculating all the initial parameters to launch the simulation.

Going 3d
Up to that point, I had displayed the simulation only in 2d, with the canvas through Create.js. Doing it 2d was my original intention when starting the project. I did not want a complex visualisation, just the basics to observe the orbits. Due to the nature of the calculations of the orbital elements, I did not have the choice but to use 3d vectors to compute the positions. I chose to use Three.js's Vector3 for the calculations, as I did not want to reinvent the wheel, but did not think further than that. I did my calculations and used the x and y component to display the system from above, occasionally switching to x and z to see it from the side. I was so absorbed in getting the numbers right that it did not even occur to me that I could do better with the visualisation.

Then one day, like a friggin genius, I realized that I had everything I need to display the simulation in 3d. I had all the numbers in 3d, why not use the 3 components all at once? Instead of creating the scene in Create.js, I'd just create the scene in Three, add a camera and some lightning, and voilà! You can't imagine how the geek in me was thrilled when, in 2 hours, he passed from having no idea that he was going to do his visualisation in 3d to having it before his eyes. All the work was already done, and I hadn't realized it. I mean, I could see the Solar System in my browser in 3d, what's not exciting about that? I almost had tears of joy in my eyes.
<< And much more >>

But if you want the "all bells and whistles" you must go to those that need such things, for example NASA or the ESA.

If you actually care to do just about 30 seconds of research, you would see that model is Newtonian/Kelparian. Just click on the 'about' link.

I rest my case.

To Totallackey I would respond to your 'Who cares' comments, you should care. But, because you refuse to open your mind to any possibility other than what your narrow minded beliefs tell you is true or not you are missing my point entirely.  The fact is that the Sun is orbiting the centre of the Galaxy (taking about 230 million years each time) while the planets are orbiting the Sun at an angle of 63 degrees to the plane of the Suns Galactic orbital plane.  So if you trace out the true paths of the planets through space relative to the Sun you will find they follow a spiral shape.

I am not just throwing random, plucked out of the air numbers at you, I am telling you the facts. The south galactic pole lies in the constellation Sculptor which is also 63 degrees from the south celestial pole.

But if you don't "care" about any of that and don't want to learn something based on reality for a change then that's up to you.

I didn't object to models using Newton's laws (or more accurate versions).

Youi can't object to something that doesn't exist.

I objected to the to-scale part, as it wouldn't let you see anything.

Look above...you see something that is not to scale, but shows movement.

Something similar, based on the laws and math of Newton/Kepler/Einstein could be done too...

If you tried to put a to-scale model of the solar system, just out to Neptune, on a 4K screen, the sun would be less than a pixel.
If you had a to-scale model like that, you wouldn't see anything.

You know this.
Yet you keep complaining.

Never asked for a scale model...stop strawmanning.

Quote from: totallackey on March 03, 2020, 04:59:22 AM

Doesn't depict the Solar System in motion.
Doesn't use the math of Newton, or GR, or even Keplar.

Did you even bother reading what it says?
It seems now you are just in pathetic denial mode where even if something indicates it does use gravity, you will just dismiss it as not using it.

Math is math.

You don't have it...

Bye alchemist...

I demand that these so-called "scientists" (if they're that good) provide me with an animated CGI model of the solar system that not only is to scale, but is 1:1 on a distance scale AND doesn't have that speeded up nonsense that fools everyone and must RUN IN REAL TIME. If they can't, they're clearly incapable and incompetent and are just lying.

You are lying.

I never demanded a scale model.

Does this look like a scale model?

Answer - no

The problem for you and others of your ilk is this.

No such model utilizing Newton/Kepler/Einstein can be made because the math doesn't work.

Bye alchemist...

Quote from: totallackey on March 03, 2020, 08:18:43 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on March 03, 2020, 05:43:09 AM

Quote

That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...

Where does it say it doesn't?

It says it doesn't when it doesn't say it does.

If you actually care to do just about 30 seconds of research, you would see that model is Newtonian/Kelparian. Just click on the 'about' link.
The ephemeris provided by this site (which include coordinates, distances from Earth and Sun, estimated magnitude and, for comets, time to perihelion) are obtained from the JPL Horizons service.

Then go check out the JPL Horizons service, it's all there in the documentation.

So when you make a claim "That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein..." please try and back it up with some facts. A step you often skip over.

You provide the fact the model even depicts a solar system traipsing about the galaxy and then come back and write some more...

Until then, toodle pip, alchemist...

There are numerous simulations of the planetary motion relative to the Sun.
Why would anyone want an accurate simulation "that shows the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?"

Probably because that is what heliocentrists claim is happening...

Bye alchemist...

If you want one, YOU get the code for an "open-source" planetary motion simulator and modify it to allow for the Solar System's motion around the supermassive black hole, SagA*.

Quote from: totallackey

Try again...
That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...

How do you know that The Sky 3D Solar System Simulator doesn't use "use math by Newton"? Have you examined the code?

But it wouldn't use and "math by Kepler" because Kepler's laws only apply to a two-body system.
I doubt that a freebie like that would use Einstein's GR because on the screen you could never tell the difference between using Newton's Laws and GR.

But here is an "open-source" simulator for you:
A brief introduction: jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator, introduction
An example of jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator: jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator
And a brief description of how it works:

Quote from: Martin Vézina

Building jsOrrery, a Javascript / WebGL Solar System
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Velocity
The goal of the project was to simulate the Solar System by calculating the gravitational forces, so the results given by the orbital elements were just the original state of the system at the start of simulation. Now that I had the right positions for the planets, I had to find what their velocities were at that position. The gravitational forces constantly influence the velocity vector of each planet, which makes them have a curved trajectory instead of going straight, so in order to start an animation, I had to know what was the velocity vector to act upon.

My first instinct was to calculate velocity by differentiating positions at different times. After all, velocity is exactly that : the difference between the positions of an object at the start and end of a time interval. If the calculations of orbital elements gave an accurate position, there is no reason why I couldnt get an accurate difference between two positions, even with a small time increment. I figured that a single one second interval would get me a reasonably accurate velocity reading, no need to perform a complex integration. One second at that scale is small enough to be considered instantaneous.

The result was satisfactory, except for one thing. In my Solar Sytem, I included the orbit of Halley's comet. As you may know, its orbit is in the shape of an elongated ellipse: it is highly eccentric. Eccentricity is the parameter that describes the shape of the orbit, with 0 being circular and augmenting towards 1 for flatter ellipses. One of the effects of having an eccentric orbit is that the calculations of the orbital elements become less accurate. It's not a big problem when you want an approximate position, but velocities cannot be inferred from inacurrate positions. So Halley's comet wasn't giving a damn about its trajectory, getting the hell out away in the universe.

Fortunately, there is a principle of physics that was on my side, and permits the calculation of the speed of an orbiting body from its position only : the vis-viva equation. But speed is a scalar, whereas velocity is a vector, so with vis-viva I had the length of the velocity, not its orientation. Further calculations were needed to get the orientation as well, and I ended up with a pretty good system for calculating all the initial parameters to launch the simulation.

Going 3d
Up to that point, I had displayed the simulation only in 2d, with the canvas through Create.js. Doing it 2d was my original intention when starting the project. I did not want a complex visualisation, just the basics to observe the orbits. Due to the nature of the calculations of the orbital elements, I did not have the choice but to use 3d vectors to compute the positions. I chose to use Three.js's Vector3 for the calculations, as I did not want to reinvent the wheel, but did not think further than that. I did my calculations and used the x and y component to display the system from above, occasionally switching to x and z to see it from the side. I was so absorbed in getting the numbers right that it did not even occur to me that I could do better with the visualisation.

Then one day, like a friggin genius, I realized that I had everything I need to display the simulation in 3d. I had all the numbers in 3d, why not use the 3 components all at once? Instead of creating the scene in Create.js, I'd just create the scene in Three, add a camera and some lightning, and voilà! You can't imagine how the geek in me was thrilled when, in 2 hours, he passed from having no idea that he was going to do his visualisation in 3d to having it before his eyes. All the work was already done, and I hadn't realized it. I mean, I could see the Solar System in my browser in 3d, what's not exciting about that? I almost had tears of joy in my eyes.
<< And much more >>

But if you want the "all bells and whistles" you must go to those that need such things, for example NASA or the ESA.

Funny...

they don't have it...

And it won't show up on a computer screen as CGI...

Bye again, alchemist...

Quote

If you actually care to do just about 30 seconds of research, you would see that model is Newtonian/Kelparian. Just click on the 'about' link.

I rest my case.

To Totallackey I would respond to your 'Who cares' comments, you should care. But, because you refuse to open your mind to any possibility other than what your narrow minded beliefs tell you is true or not you are missing my point entirely.  The fact is that the Sun is orbiting the centre of the Galaxy (taking about 230 million years each time) while the planets are orbiting the Sun at an angle of 63 degrees to the plane of the Suns Galactic orbital plane.  So if you trace out the true paths of the planets through space relative to the Sun you will find they follow a spiral shape.

I am not just throwing random, plucked out of the air numbers at you, I am telling you the facts. The south galactic pole lies in the constellation Sculptor which is also 63 degrees from the south celestial pole.

But if you don't "care" about any of that and don't want to learn something based on reality for a change then that's up to you.

You are just throwing out random numbers, because you do not have any CGI representation of what you claim to be happening that is based on the "sciency stuff."

Bye alchemist...

Quote from: rabinoz on March 03, 2020, 02:09:00 PM

There are numerous simulations of the planetary motion relative to the Sun.
Why would anyone want an accurate simulation "that shows the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?"

Probably because that is what heliocentrists claim is happening...

But no benefit would be gained for one simulation of the planets orbiting the Sun and then the whole Solar System orbiting SagA* sp no one would bother doing it.

Bye alchemist...

Quote from: rabinoz on March 03, 2020, 02:09:00 PM

If you want one, YOU get the code for an "open-source" planetary motion simulator and modify it to allow for the Solar System's motion around the supermassive black hole, SagA*.

Quote from: totallackey

Try again...
That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...

How do you know that The Sky 3D Solar System Simulator doesn't use "use math by Newton"? Have you examined the code?

But it wouldn't use and "math by Kepler" because Kepler's laws only apply to a two-body system.
I doubt that a freebie like that would use Einstein's GR because on the screen you could never tell the difference between using Newton's Laws and GR.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
An example of jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator: jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator
And a brief description of how it works:

Quote from: Martin Vézina

Building jsOrrery, a Javascript / WebGL Solar System
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Velocity
The goal of the project was to simulate the Solar System by calculating the gravitational forces, so the results given by the orbital elements were just the original state of the system at the start of simulation.
<< And much more >>

But if you want the "all bells and whistles" you must go to those that need such things, for example NASA or the ESA.

Funny...
they don't have it...
And it won't show up on a computer screen as CGI...
Bye again, alchemist...

Who doesn't have what?

Stop being a useless waste of time!
Of course the jsOrrery, WebGL Solar System "shows up on a computer screen as CGI"

I gave you the direct link to the jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator: jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator

And it does use Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation to calculate the motions of the planets.

Your denying everything proves nothing!

Quote from: totallackey on March 04, 2020, 03:51:46 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 03, 2020, 02:09:00 PM

There are numerous simulations of the planetary motion relative to the Sun.
Why would anyone want an accurate simulation "that shows the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?"

Probably because that is what heliocentrists claim is happening...

But no benefit would be gained for one simulation of the planets orbiting the Sun and then the whole Solar System orbiting SagA* sp no one would bother doing it.

LOL!!!

Sheer hilarity!!!

"But no benefit..."

How's about, "WE CAN"T USE A MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATION BASED ON NEWTON/KEPLER/EINSTEIN BECAUSE IT ALL FALLS APART!!!"

Quote from: totallackey

Bye alchemist...

Quote from: rabinoz on March 03, 2020, 02:09:00 PM

If you want one, YOU get the code for an "open-source" planetary motion simulator and modify it to allow for the Solar System's motion around the supermassive black hole, SagA*.

Quote from: totallackey

Try again...
That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...

How do you know that The Sky 3D Solar System Simulator doesn't use "use math by Newton"? Have you examined the code?

But it wouldn't use and "math by Kepler" because Kepler's laws only apply to a two-body system.
I doubt that a freebie like that would use Einstein's GR because on the screen you could never tell the difference between using Newton's Laws and GR.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
An example of jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator: jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator
And a brief description of how it works:

Quote from: Martin Vézina

Building jsOrrery, a Javascript / WebGL Solar System
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Velocity
The goal of the project was to simulate the Solar System by calculating the gravitational forces, so the results given by the orbital elements were just the original state of the system at the start of simulation.
<< And much more >>

But if you want the "all bells and whistles" you must go to those that need such things, for example NASA or the ESA.

Funny...
they don't have it...
And it won't show up on a computer screen as CGI...
Bye again, alchemist...

Who doesn't have what?

Stop being a useless waste of time!
Of course the jsOrrery, WebGL Solar System "shows up on a computer screen as CGI"

I gave you the direct link to the jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator: jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator

And it does use Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation to calculate the motions of the planets.

Your denying everything proves nothing!

Capture a screen shot of it showing the sun, along with the planets dutifully in tow, traipsing about the galaxy...

Post it here...

Until then, toodle pip alchemist!

Quote from: rabinoz on March 04, 2020, 04:13:15 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 04, 2020, 03:51:46 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 03, 2020, 02:09:00 PM

There are numerous simulations of the planetary motion relative to the Sun.
Why would anyone want an accurate simulation "that shows the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?"

Probably because that is what heliocentrists claim is happening...

But no benefit would be gained for one simulation of the planets orbiting the Sun and then the whole Solar System orbiting SagA* sp no one would bother doing it.

LOL!!!

Sheer hilarity!!!
"But no benefit..."
How's about, "WE CAN"T USE A MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATION BECAUSE IT ALL FALLS APART!!!"

How about showing what would be gained by a single simulation of all of that?

Quote from: rabinoz on March 04, 2020, 04:13:15 AM

Quote from: totallackey

Bye alchemist...

Quote from: rabinoz on March 03, 2020, 02:09:00 PM

Your denying everything proves nothing!

Capture a screen shot of it showing the sun, along with the planets dutifully in tow, traipsing about the galaxy...

Post it here...

How about I only show the planets around the Sun as that is what it simulates.


jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator - Inner Planets


jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator - Solar System

And, Mr Totallackey, your "Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo) just makes YOU look ridiculous!

Quote from: totallackey on March 04, 2020, 04:18:41 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 04, 2020, 04:13:15 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 04, 2020, 03:51:46 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 03, 2020, 02:09:00 PM

There are numerous simulations of the planetary motion relative to the Sun.
Why would anyone want an accurate simulation "that shows the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?"

Probably because that is what heliocentrists claim is happening...

But no benefit would be gained for one simulation of the planets orbiting the Sun and then the whole Solar System orbiting SagA* sp no one would bother doing it.

LOL!!!

Sheer hilarity!!!
"But no benefit..."
How's about, "WE CAN"T USE A MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATION BECAUSE IT ALL FALLS APART!!!"

How about showing what would be gained by a single simulation of all of that?

Think of the billions of believers that would be comforted by the truth of the matter...

Because right now, you got nothing...

This why your desperate attempts to strawman the hell out of this...aren't gonna work...

Quote from: rabinoz on March 04, 2020, 04:13:15 AM

Quote from: totallackey

Bye alchemist...

Quote from: rabinoz on March 03, 2020, 02:09:00 PM

Your denying everything proves nothing!

Capture a screen shot of it showing the sun, along with the planets dutifully in tow, traipsing about the galaxy...

Post it here...

How about I only show the planets around the Sun as that is what it simulates.[/quote]
In other words, doesn't show what I asked for, after promising it would...

And, Mr Totallackey, your "Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo) just makes YOU look ridiculous!

It is not an APPEAL to ridicule at this point...

I have only stated facts, as evidenced by your failure to produce...

Toodle pip, alchemist.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 04, 2020, 05:10:35 AM

How about showing what would be gained by a single simulation of all of that?

Think of the billions of believers that would be comforted by the truth of the matter...

The billions have no problem! It's you few flat-Earthers who still would not believe it if they saw it anyway!
You'd all claim if was all CGI !

But, who cares about all of that? This is the Flat Earth Society not the Geocentric Universe Society!

Simply showing that the Earth is a Globe is all we need!
So here's a photo that does just that and whose original was NOT CGI:

View of the Earth as seen by the Apollo 17 crew -- astronaut Eugene A. Cernan, commander; astronaut Ronald E. Evans, command module pilot; and scientist-astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt lunar module pilot -- traveling toward the moon. This translunar coast photograph extends from the Mediterranean Sea area to the Antarctica South polar ice cap. This is the first time the Apollo trajectory made it possible to photograph the South polar ice cap. Note the heavy cloud cover in the Southern Hemisphere. Almost the entire coastline of Africa is clearly visible. The Arabian Peninsula can be seen at the Northeastern edge of Africa. The large island off the coast of Africa is the Malagasy republic. The Asian mainland is on the horizon toward the Northeast. Image Credit: NASA

Good night, loser!

You are just throwing out random numbers, because you do not have any CGI representation of what you claim to be happening that is based on the "sciency stuff."

Your name seems to be quite appropriate here because you seem to have a total lack of ability to accept anything else as true and real other than what your narrow beliefs tell you.  If you'd care to do some investigation of your own for a moment (which I understand is what zeteticists are supposed to be good at) rather than simply slagging off those who actually know what they are talking about you would discover quite quickly that nothing that I say is ever 'plucked out of thin air'.

I can confirm that I am not an alchemist, never have been never will be.

Quote from: totallackey on March 04, 2020, 05:24:45 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 04, 2020, 05:10:35 AM

How about showing what would be gained by a single simulation of all of that?

Think of the billions of believers that would be comforted by the truth of the matter...

The billions have no problem! It's you few flat-Earthers who still would not believe it if they saw it anyway!

Don't you just love the dutiful and compliant...

Please allow me to shift the subject...

No...

Pony up with the working CGI...you know, the sciency one...

Quote

You are just throwing out random numbers, because you do not have any CGI representation of what you claim to be happening that is based on the "sciency stuff."

Your name seems to be quite appropriate here because you seem to have a total lack of ability to accept anything else as true and real other than what your narrow beliefs tell you.  If you'd care to do some investigation of your own for a moment (which I understand is what zeteticists are supposed to be good at) rather than simply slagging off those who actually know what they are talking about you would discover quite quickly that nothing that I say is ever 'plucked out of thin air'.

I can confirm that I am not an alchemist, never have been never will be.

You are an alchemist...you follow Newton...

No my friend, I follow what my instincts tell me.  How about you?

Which number or numbers are you saying I have plucked out of thin air anyway? If you mean 63 degrees for the difference between the NGP and the NCP then just look on any star chart for the location of the NGP. You will find it at a declination of +27degrees in the constellation Coma Berenices.  Now do a simple subtraction sum 90d - 27d and you will get the angular separation (i.e. inclination) of the galactic equatorial plane relative to the equatorial plane. 63 degrees. 

It's not made up, you just need to know your way around the night sky.  Equally the southern galactic pole lies at -27degrees declination and so you can see already that means the same 63 degrees applies to the southern sky as well.

We can take things a stage further if you want. If you look at the points +/- 27degrees declination you will find that these points on the sky are as far away as you can get from the milky way. Also if you trace out the galactic equator (90 degrees from the galactic poles) you will see that this line passes through a clearly visible dark rift which bisects the milky way in the N/S direction. This rift is visible evidence that supports the view that our Galaxy is a spiral galaxy. How? because we can look out at other edge on spiral galaxies and see a similar dark rift.  Take M104, MGC4565 and NGC 895 as three classic examples.

The fact that the galactic equator is so far out of line with the ecliptic (Suns passage through the sky) is a directly visible clue that the plane of the solar system is highly inclined (almost perpendicular to) the galactic plane. No CGI involved in that at all.

No my friend, I follow what my instincts tell me.  How about you?

Which number or numbers are you saying I have plucked out of thin air anyway? If you mean 63 degrees for the difference between the NGP and the NCP then just look on any star chart for the location of the NGP. You will find it at a declination of +27degrees in the constellation Coma Berenices.  Now do a simple subtraction sum 90d - 27d and you will get the angular separation (i.e. inclination) of the galactic equatorial plane relative to the equatorial plane. 63 degrees. 

It's not made up, you just need to know your way around the night sky.  Equally the southern galactic pole lies at -27degrees declination and so you can see already that means the same 63 degrees applies to the southern sky as well.

We can take things a stage further if you want. If you look at the points +/- 27degrees declination you will find that these points on the sky are as far away as you can get from the milky way. Also if you trace out the galactic equator (90 degrees from the galactic poles) you will see that this line passes through a clearly visible dark rift which bisects the milky way in the N/S direction. This rift is visible evidence that supports the view that our Galaxy is a spiral galaxy. How? because we can look out at other edge on spiral galaxies and see a similar dark rift.  Take M104, MGC4565 and NGC 895 as three classic examples.

The fact that the galactic equator is so far out of line with the ecliptic (Suns passage through the sky) is a directly visible clue that the plane of the solar system is highly inclined (almost perpendicular to) the galactic plane. No CGI involved in that at all.

Nobody gives two freaking !@#$ about what you post here...

Either pony up a working CGI of the solar system traipsing about the galaxy or just go away, you alchemist.

Your numbers are hocus pocus...

Quote

View of the Earth as seen by the Apollo 17 crew -- astronaut Eugene A. Cernan, commander; astronaut Ronald E. Evans, command module pilot; and scientist-astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt lunar module pilot -- traveling toward the moon. This translunar coast photograph extends from the Mediterranean Sea area to the Antarctica South polar ice cap. This is the first time the Apollo trajectory made it possible to photograph the South polar ice cap. Note the heavy cloud cover in the Southern Hemisphere. Almost the entire coastline of Africa is clearly visible. The Arabian Peninsula can be seen at the Northeastern edge of Africa. The large island off the coast of Africa is the Malagasy republic. The Asian mainland is on the horizon toward the Northeast. Image Credit: NASA

Good night, loser!

I can JUST about see my house from there, silly clouds are in the way though.

Also, Does anyone know why totallackey is so angry?

Nobody gives two freaking !@#$ about what you post here...

O I wouldn't say that..  there are some people here who are actually interested in what is real and true.  Some are obviously only driven by their tunnel-vision like beliefs and you have made it quite clear that you belong to the latter group.

In fact reading back through many of the responses to your own posts, it seems that what you say about me is more applicable to what others think about you.

You've obviously got a thing in your head about CGI at the moment.  Not quite the style of a flat Earther is it?  That said CGI is about the only way you will be able to create anything that looks like a flat Earth.  And repeatedly callling me an alchemist is not going to change anything. But if it makes you happy then feel free.

BTW isn't it amazing how a question that was originally about how time zones relate to FE theory can get gradually transformed into slagging off match about whether or not the solar system is orbiting around the Galaxy effectively on its side?!?

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 03, 2020, 12:13:50 PM

I demand that these so-called "scientists" (if they're that good) provide me with an animated CGI model of the solar system that not only is to scale, but is 1:1 on a distance scale AND doesn't have that speeded up nonsense that fools everyone and must RUN IN REAL TIME. If they can't, they're clearly incapable and incompetent and are just lying.

You are lying.

I never demanded a scale model.

What am I lying about?

I am stating what I want.

Who cares what you want?

Self-centered much?

Quote from: Timeisup on March 03, 2020, 12:08:12 AM

Flat earthers like yourself love to nit pick away...

Hey, not fair...I just wrote I will not nitpick...

Quote from: Timeisup on March 03, 2020, 12:08:12 AM

...at the tiniest discrepancies in conventional theory while ignoring the gaping holes all over your own ill  thought out random individual ideas.

Like what?

Like: celestial dome or celestial plane?

Like: things fall because universal acceleration or density?

Like: sunsets because of perspective or bendy light?

Like: finite disc or infinite plane?

Like: flat plane or non-euclidean closed plane?

Like: are the sun and moon round or flat?

Like: mono-pole map or bi-pole map?

Youi can't object to something that doesn't exist.

And you wanting to pretend they don't exist doesn't mean they don't.
Also, wrong, you can object to something that doesn't exist.

Something similar, based on the laws and math of Newton/Kepler/Einstein could be done too...

Then go away and do it yourself, as you clearly have no interest in accepting the models which already do exist.

Never asked for a scale model...stop strawmanning.

Follow your own advice.
I objected to to-scale models. You then pretended that meant I thought all models were bogus.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 03, 2020, 11:41:57 AM

Did you even bother reading what it says?
It seems now you are just in pathetic denial mode where even if something indicates it does use gravity, you will just dismiss it as not using it.

Math is math.

So I will take that as a no, you didn't bother reading it and are just in pathetic denial mode.

No such model utilizing Newton/Kepler/Einstein can be made because the math doesn't work.

That's a nice baseless claim of yours. How about you prove it?
After all, if the math doesn't work, you should be able to clearly show that it doesn't.
So far all you have are your baseless claims.

Probably because that is what heliocentrists claim is happening...

Where?
What people who accept reality are claiming that the planets are "dutifully in tow"?

Think of the billions of believers that would be comforted by the truth of the matter...

What billions?
Those billions of people who accept reality don't need a pathetic animation to be comforted.
Those like you who reject reality will dismiss the animation.

I have only stated facts, as evidenced by your failure to produce...

No, you have made baseless claims.

You have claimed that the math does not work.
That is not a fact. That is a baseless claim by you with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

You have shown you have no interest in accepting reality. As such, why should anyone bother wasting their time to produce a model of the sun in motion, just for you to reject it.
If you wish to claim the math doesn't work then the onus is on you to prove it.

Either pony up the proof the math doesn't work or just go away, you alchemist.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 04, 2020, 05:37:04 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 04, 2020, 05:24:45 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 04, 2020, 05:10:35 AM

How about showing what would be gained by a single simulation of all of that?

Think of the billions of believers that would be comforted by the truth of the matter...

The billions have no problem! It's you few flat-Earthers who still would not believe it if they saw it anyway!

Quote from: rabinoz on March 04, 2020, 05:37:04 AM

Please allow me to shift the subject...

No...

I already gave you a freebie simple Solar System that "does use Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation to calculate the motions of the planets."

And you won't find and Galactic Simulators that go into the detail of planetary motion in the one simulator for a few reasons:

• It would provide no extra useful information.
  
  
• For the Solar System the Sun's mass is 99.8 per cent of total mass the solar system, so lumping all the mass into the Sun is quite adequate.
  
  
• Numerical precision is always a problem with even long term planetary simulation. It would become an almost impossible problem to simulate an entire galaxy down to the planetary level.
• And the list goes on.

But that silly "vortex video" of the Solar System's motion through the Galaxy might be eye-catching but it's is just plain wrong!
One major point is that (at present) the ecliptic (the orbital plane of the planets) is tilted at about 60° to the direction of motion.
As a result, the planets do not lag behind the Sun in that helical motion each planet is sometimes leading the Sun and sometimes trailing it - something like this, with the Solar System moving from left to right:

From: UNIVERSE TODAY: Is the Solar System Really a Vortex? The short answer? No. - that's worth reading too.
Credit : Science Minus Details

And that is discussed at length in here:

No, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex”

A still frame from DJ Sadhu’s video claiming the solar system moves through the galaxy along a vortex.
This claim is—to be charitable—incorrect. Image credit: DJ Sadhu, from the video.

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. While there are some useful visualizations in it, I caution people to take it with a galaxy-sized grain of salt.

Why? The basis of the claim is that the planets aren’t orbiting the Sun heliocentrically, but are instead a vortex going around the galaxy.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 But let’s not argue over semantics. Look at the video again: Sadhu shows the Sun leading the planets, ahead of them as it goes around the galaxy (he makes this even more obvious in a second video; see below). This is not just misleading, it’s completely wrong. Sometimes the planets really are ahead of the Sun as we orbit in the Milky Way, and sometimes trail behind it (depending on where they are in their orbit around the Sun). This is plainly true to anyone who actually observes the planets in the sky; they can commonly be seen in the part of the sky ahead of the Earth and Sun in the direction of our orbit around the Milky Way galaxy.

Again, I’m not arguing some small detail here. The idea that the planets trail behind the Sun as it moves through the galaxy is fundamental to what Sadhu is saying about the helix—as I’ll explain below (in the section “Where Do All These Ideas Come From?”). But first, there’s a bit more to see.
<< It's a long article and I'll not quote any more here >>

I already gave you a freebie simple Solar System that "does use Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation to calculate the motions of the planets."

And you won't find and Galactic Simulators that go into the detail of planetary motion in the one simulator for a few reasons:

• It would provide no extra useful information.
  
  
• For the Solar System the Sun's mass is 99.8 per cent of total mass the solar system, so lumping all the mass into the Sun is quite adequate.
  
  
• Numerical precision is always a problem with even long term planetary simulation. It would become an almost impossible problem to simulate an entire galaxy down to the planetary level.
• And the list goes on.

But that silly "vortex video" of the Solar System's motion through the Galaxy might be eye-catching but it's is just plain wrong!
One major point is that (at present) the ecliptic (the orbital plane of the planets) is tilted at about 60° to the direction of motion.
As a result, the planets do not lag behind the Sun in that helical motion each planet is sometimes leading the Sun and sometimes trailing it - something like this, with the Solar System moving from left to right:

From: UNIVERSE TODAY: Is the Solar System Really a Vortex? The short answer? No. - that's worth reading too.
Credit : Science Minus Details

And that is discussed at length in here:

Quote from: Phil Plait

No, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex”

A still frame from DJ Sadhu’s video claiming the solar system moves through the galaxy along a vortex.
This claim is—to be charitable—incorrect. Image credit: DJ Sadhu, " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">from the video.

The video does have catchy music.
I dont actually find the video so far off. If you pause the video it does show the planets orbit in a flat plane. Although it seemed that Neptune was a bit off and the solar systems incline is way wrong. But beyond that, its a nice visual demonstration of how we move through the solar system.
What I find misleading is when he goes off about how "rotational motion and vortex motion are completely different things" He pulled that right out of his ass. Try and find any definition of a vortex that does not require rotation. A vortex is simply a spiral that extends along an additional axis

If you view the solar system it is always a "spiral"; orbits in a flat plane. And so is the Galaxy and most other things he shows in the video. The solar system never extends past its plane, neither do any of his other examples that he shows. Not even the frikken flowers. This is some guy that got caught up with an idea, and never asked if it was correct.

The solar systems rotation can be thought the same way a helicopters blades move the air

Do they rotate or "vortex" (is that even a fucking word!)

Quote from: rabinoz on March 04, 2020, 01:31:55 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But that silly "vortex video" of the Solar System's motion through the Galaxy might be eye-catching but it's is just plain wrong!
One major point is that (at present) the ecliptic (the orbital plane of the planets) is tilted at about 60° to the direction of motion.
As a result, the planets do not lag behind the Sun in that helical motion each planet is sometimes leading the Sun and sometimes trailing it - something like this, with the Solar System moving from left to right:

From: UNIVERSE TODAY: Is the Solar System Really a Vortex? The short answer? No. - that's worth reading too.
Credit : Science Minus Details

And that is discussed at length in here:

Quote from: Phil Plait

No, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex”

A still frame from DJ Sadhu’s video claiming the solar system moves through the galaxy along a vortex.
This claim is—to be charitable—incorrect. Image credit: DJ Sadhu, from the video.

The video does have catchy music.
I dont actually find the video so far off. If you pause the video it does show the planets orbit in a flat plane. Although it seemed that Neptune was a bit off and the solar systems incline is way wrong.

A single screenshot is not too bad but the video, with its direction of travel swinging all over the place is my main issue.
I suspect that is also what geocentrists (and esp FEers), like totallacky, find so ridiculous.

The helical model - our solar system is a vortex by DjSadhu
There some simple mistakes, such as at 0:23 where he writes "Our Solar System moves through space at 70,000 km/hr."
If he means the orbital speed around SagA* it should be 720,000 km/hr If not it's much higher.
But my main objection is from 0:33 where the direction of travel apparently swings all over the place then:
At 0:55 He specifically claims that "The sun is like a comet, dragging the planets in its wake."
But this is quite incorrect. The Solar System, as a whole, moves with the ecliptic at about 60° to the direction of movement as in this

with the Solar System moving from left to right:

From: UNIVERSE TODAY: Is the Solar System Really a Vortex? Credit : Science Minus Details

But beyond that, its a nice visual demonstration of how we move through the solar system.

The solar systems rotation can be thought the same way a helicopters blades move the air

Do they rotate or "vortex" (is that even a fucking word!)

I guess my "hang up" springs from the way flat-Earthers use it to ridicule the heliocentric system when it's simply an aspect of Cosmology that they can't swallow.

So we have totallacky here and Tom Bishop earlier demanding explanations for things quite irrelevant to either the shape of the Earth or even to the basic Heliocentric Solar System.

Quote

Nobody gives two freaking !@#$ about what you post here...

O I wouldn't say that..  there are some people here who are actually interested in what is real and true.

Mainly me.

Certainly not you, as you have zero interest in gaining a CGI depiction of the solar system in full motion using Newton/Kepler/Einstein math.

Some are obviously only driven by their tunnel-vision like beliefs and you have made it quite clear that you belong to the latter group.

I think we have established who is in blind belief here.

That would be you.

Have no argument?

Easy... strawman, appeal to numbers, etc...

In fact reading back through many of the responses to your own posts, it seems that what you say about me is more applicable to what others think about you.

Appeal to numbers.

NGAS...

You've obviously got a thing in your head about CGI at the moment.  Not quite the style of a flat Earther is it?  That said CGI is about the only way you will be able to create anything that looks like a flat Earth.  And repeatedly callling me an alchemist is not going to change anything. But if it makes you happy then feel free.

Calling you other things would probably make me happier, but I am constricted by the rules of the forum.

You got a CGI model of the solar system (using the math of Newton/Kepler/Einstein, you know...all "sciency!") traipsing about the galaxy or not?

BTW isn't it amazing how a question that was originally about how time zones relate to FE theory can get gradually transformed into slagging off match about whether or not the solar system is orbiting around the Galaxy effectively on its side?!?

Yeah, a topic that was originally derailed by a RE-adherent...as is typical here at the flatearthsociety...here

snipped

and here...

snipped

Trust me, the models do exist even though I can't prove it.

Nope.

Toodle pip, alchemist.

Certainly not you, as you have zero interest in gaining a CGI depiction of the solar system in full motion using Newton/Kepler/Einstein math.

Why are you so obsessed with a CGI depiction of the solar sytem?  I would have thought that even you would realise that using CGI you can create pretty much anything you want. Hell you can even create a film showing dinosaurs running around and make it seem real.  The film Avatar was made entirely using CGI.  I'm sure you could even create a flat Earth using CGI but what would that prove? 

In reality there ain't no dinosaurs running around in the 21st century and there certainly isn't a flat Earth either.