If I had a nickel for every time someone dismissed a world-dynamics-enhancing suggestion for some game with "it's not going to be a simulator," I'd have too many nickels.
Of course there's no point in implementing something that doesn't contribute value to a game, whether that's a dynamic system or a mechanic of play. But not everyone assesses value the same way. Some people happen to enjoy worlds that mimic key aspects of certain physical behaviors, so that the world itself expresses interesting behaviors with which players can interact. And that's true despite the impossibility of implementing any feature, be it simulation or mechanic, completely or perfectly. Nothing is complete or perfect; declaring that simulating a small part of reality is not worth doing because it doesn't capture every aspect of physics is not a reasonable objection.
"It's not going to be a simulator" is pretty much saying to the gamers who like dynamically-interesting worlds that their play interests are unworthy of consideration. That doesn't seem right to me.
I understand and accept that planet rotation and orbiting are not going to be part of LT 1.0. Simply
discussing the possibility of adding these features through a post-launch mod -- making Limit Theory more fun for those who do enjoy more dynamically interesting worlds -- should not be summarily declared out-of-bounds by anyone. I don't expect to complain every time this old "it's not going to be a simulation" thing comes up again, but I hope it's OK if I try to explain once more why I object to it.
I really don't need any more of those nickels, thanks.