Good enough for you?
Not for totallackey!
He wants it the show all of that moving through the Milky Way galaxy.
Then I guess he'll want it to include the Milky Way's movement through our local group, etc etc.
Well that’s just a stupid requirement. The movement of the solar system through the galaxy won’t affect the orbits by any remotely detectable amount. Showing it in an animation serves no purpose other than making it harder to see the orbits that have been calculated.
Probably why it’s hard to find one. Why would anyone waste their time on it?
But all totallackey is trying to do is to make "modern cosmology" look ridiculous even though he cannot make such a simulation of his flat Earth model - what model?
Personally I believe that we should concentrate on the shape of the Earth.
This is because there are no easy observations that prove that the Earth rotates, etc rather the all of the "heavens" (the rest of Universe) rotating about a stationary Earth.
The Heliocentric System was originally accepted because the observed motions of the planets (Mars in particular) did not readily conform to the old Ptolemaic system.
Tycho Brahe did propose a Geocentric Solar System that with slight modification does agree well with astronomical observations.
But stationary Earth in a rotating Solar System does not follow the ordinary physical laws like
Newton's and so Kepler and Newton saw the end of Tycho Brahe's "compromise".
But all of these systems were for a spherical earth and there was little thought that the Earth could be flat back there.
The rest might be in the tl;dr category.
Ernst Mach proposed a completely relativistic system which Einstein called "Mach's Principle" and it proposed that even inertia (or acceleration) was relative.
So under Mach's Principle, the shape of a water surface in a rotating bucket could be regarded as due to the bucket rotating or the whole Universe rotating about the bucket.
Such a system, if valid, would make a geocentric Earth just as correct as a Heliocentric Solar System.
Einstein was attracted toward such a totally relativistic system but soon realised that he could not build that into his Theory of General Relativity.
Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity, John D. Norton.[/b][/url] and especially the section
Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle") go into this in detail.
Though
Isaac Newton preceded
Ernst Mach by almost 300 years, he considered many of the same thoughts.
So while absolute velocity cannot be measured, even under General Relativity, absolute acceleration (including rotation) can be measured.
Some, even now, question this but the consensus is that for all practical purposes the acceleration due to the rotation of the Earth can be and is being measured.
And there is one obvious result of this absolute acceleration due to rotation and the is the ellipticity of the Earth - it is an ellipsoid not a sphere and even Newton estimated roughly how out-of-round the Earth should be.
He overestimated it, possibly because he assumed the Earth was a uniform density fluid like water but the Earth density is far from uniform with its very dense metal core.