[orionblamblam]

> You then, must make a positive statement that 'surface-to-orbit' intercepts are calculated using a heliocentric model

Hogwash. neither I nor reality must accept your flawed notions.

However: with your sufficiently vague statement, I *can* make this positive statement: "Earth surface-to-Mars-orbit intercepts are calculated using a heliocentric model."


> Otherwise, my position that orbital calculations are made using a geocentric assumption stands, regardless of the relative motion red-herring that you insist on introducing to the discussion.

Hold up, son. Do you or do you not recognize that the Earth's rotation is require for surface-to-space intercepts?

* If you do not accept it: you're just dead wrong.

* If you do accept it: then you accept that the geocentric model completely collapses, as geocentrism has *nothing* going for it except for the illusion that "everything goes around the Earth." If it's demonstrated that that doesn't happen... geocentrism goes away.

So: which is it: are you wrong, or are you wrong? Or do you drop this silliness and recognize that the motion of the Earth - ALL the motion of the Earth - is required for basic orbital dynamics?

> relative motion red-herring

As anyone with any knowledge of practical launch vehicle prediction and trajectory optimization woudl point out to you (and then proabbly walk away shaking their heads, mumbling about the tragic state of the educational system), this "relative motion" that you try to ignore is not a "red herring," but an integral part of the equation.

So: where will you rest the goalposts to *this* time?

[GourmetDan]

"However: with your sufficiently vague statement, I *can* make this positive statement: "Earth surface-to-Mars-orbit intercepts are calculated using a heliocentric model.""

It's perfectly clear by now that you are the one who moved the goalposts when you said 'surface-to-space' intercepts are calculated from a heliocentric model.

If you move from the earth's 'surface' to 'space', then that intercept clearly ends when you first reach 'space' and those are clearly calculated using a fixed point within the earth.

Now you change the terms to 'surface-to-interplanetary' which is a different thing in terms of where you set your coordinate system, not which calculations you perform.

But you are safe. Most people can't tell the difference, but I can.

You are confused here. There is no way to tell absolutely which is rotating, the earth or the universe. I explained that previously with my foucalt pendulum example.

Therefore, any opinion as to whether the earth or the universe is doing the rotation is just than, an opinion and only the relative rotation goes into the calculations, not some absolute earth-based rotation.

[theFIRMbss]

Anger Antisocial Behavior Anxiety Appetite Disturbances Avoidance Body Image Problems Compulsions Confusion Cravings Deceitfulness Delusions Denial Depression Dissociation Euphoria Fatigue Fears Flashbacks Grandiosity Grief Hallucinations Histrionics Hyperactivity Identity Confusion Impulsiveness Intoxication Jealousy Learning Difficulties Mania Memory Loss Mood Swings Movement Problems Nonsense Obsessions Oddness Physical Complaints and Pain Panic Paranoia Psychosis Religious Preoccupations Self-Esteem Problems Self-Mutilation Sexual Performance Problems Sexual Preoccupations Sleep Problems Sloppiness Speech Difficulties Stress Suicidal Thoughts Trauma