The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
OverLordSandwich
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Earth Is Absolutely Immobile

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
GarretKadeDupre
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,556 times Debate No: 64976
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I will be arguing that Earth is absolutely immobile. Let's make this a fun debate! There's only one rule: each debater must utilize at least one graphical illustration in each round.

I await acceptance.


OverLordSandwich

Con

Are you saying the Earth doesn't move? Galileo, Newton, and many other scientists have proved time and time again that Earth rotates around the Sun. Hence the seasons.

I accept your debate.



Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

You're right Con, I'm saying Earth doesn't move at all! That means it doesn't orbit the sun, and it doesn't even rotate.

You said Galileo and Newton and many other scientists proved Earth rotates around the sun, but that's simply not true!

In 1641 Galileo admitted he was wrong:
  • "The falsity of the Copernican [Heliocentric] system should not in any way be called into question[. We have] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth. The conjectures employed by Copernicus and his followers [like Con] in maintaining the contrary thesis are all sufficiently rebutted"
  • - Le Opere Di Galileo Galilei

Galileo, says that not only does the earth not rotate around the sun, he says arguments to the contrary are rebutted! Ironically, Con's own authority says Con's arguments are rebutted!

Even Stephen Hawking says:

  • Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved [Geocentrism] wrong, that is not true.
  • - The Grand Design

You might object, hey, Newton proved smaller objects orbit bigger ones. But that's actually not what Newton said! He said that both objects orbit the center of their combined total mass.

It's a little known fact that modern science does not say earth orbits the sun. It actually says both Earth and the sun orbit their mutual center of mass, which, if one considers just the mass of the sun and Earth, is very near the actual center of the sun. So for practical purposes, most people just say Earth orbits the sun because it's close enough

But the problem with the above math is that it only considers the mass of the sun and Earth. While it's true that Earth would be orbiting the Solar System's center of mass if the Solar System were the whole universe, the fact is, there's a lot more mass in the universe than just the Solar System!

What if one added up the entire mass of the universe, and figured out where the center was? What if Earth happened to be sitting in the center? Then the entire universe, and the sun with it, would orbit the Earth, even though the sun is clearly much more massive than Earth!

Con mentioned the seasons.

But the seasons aren't caused by Earth orbiting the sun. In fact, they are caused by the sun orbiting Earth in a spiral motion. When the sun gets to the top of the coil, it reverses direction and the same happens at the bottom.

You may not have noticed, but if Earth is immobile, this means the entire universe has to be rotating around it to cause the apparent rotation of the sun and stars around Earth. But this rotation isn't an illusion.

You might think, that's crazy, the universe doesn't rotate, LOL! But it does:

  • The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis – that is the bold conclusion of physicists in the US who have studied the rotation of more than 15,000 galaxies.(1)

The scientists proved this by observing a bunch of galaxies and counting the ones that spin right, and the ones that spin left. It turns out that most galaxies spin in the same direction. Even though the excess is only 7%, this is huge, considering how massive the universe is:

  • [T]he chance that it could be a cosmic accident is something like one in a million.
  • If galaxies tend to spin in a certain direction, it means that the overall universe should have a rather large net angular momentum. Since angular momentum is conserved, it seems [the universe] must have been "born" spinning.(1)

Now that we've established that it's extremely possible for Earth to be motionless in the center of our rotating universe, the next step is to simply prove it. Amazingly, this is simple! The axis of the rotation of the universe is the same as the Axis of Evil:

  • The axis appears to be correlated with[...] "the axis of evil."(3)

What is the Axis of Evil, you ask? Well, there are giant patches of relatively cold and relatively warm spots in the background radiation of the universe. These spots are millions of light-years across. They occur in pairs, forming axes, and in the middle of these pairs is the Earth. It's called the Axis of Evil because it's such great evidence for Geocentrism and against Heliocentrism. The fact that the axis of the universe's rotation happens to be the Axis of Evil means that... the universe happens to rotate around Earth!

This sphere is a model of the entire observable universe.(4) You can see how the spots are aligned to form the axis of evil with Earth in the middle.

Also, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, in "the most ambitious astronomical survey project ever undertaken",(2) charted out a map of hundreds of thousands of galaxies in the universe. As you can see, earth is in the center of circles inside circles inside circles of galaxies!

If Con lets, I might post more evidence later. Your turn Con!

(1) http://physicsworld.com...

(2) sdss.org

(3) http://arxiv.org...

(4) http://www-personal.umich.edu...

OverLordSandwich

Con

I must say, this debate is getting very fascinating. I'm very excited on how this will turn out.

Quotes:
You said that Galileo admitted that he was wrong. But we must keep in mind that 1641 was one year away from Galileo's death. And as it is known, the Catholic Church would only release him from house arrest if he admitted that he was wrong. In 1638, he petitions the Inquisition to be freed and was denied. He was miserable. We CANNOT trust that his testimony is correct. He could have lied in order to be free.

Now you add Stephen Hawking into the mix: however, you added "[Geocentrism]" when Hawking didn't say that himself in The Grand Design. Take that word away, and your quote has just rebutted your Pro!


Center of Universe:
You say that it is possible that the Earth is in the center of the Universe. But it is actually IMPOSSIBLE to determine where the center of the universe is!
http://math.ucr.edu...:

"The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.

In 1929 Edwin Hubble announced that he had measured the speed of galaxies at different distances from us, and had discovered that the farther they were, the faster they were receding. This might suggest that we are at the centre of the expanding universe, but in fact if the universe is expanding uniformly according to Hubble's law, then it will appear to do so from any vantage point."

This means that there is no center and there never has been! The Big Bang was simply the spontaneous explosion EVERYWHERE at the same time!







Sphere of Axis of Evil:
If you were to look out as far as you can in all directions. The maximum point that you can see to forms a sphere! This is known as the Observable Universe.






That means that if you were to conduct your own experiment except on the Sun; then it would appear that the "Axis of Evil" forms a sphere around the Sun. Proving the "Axis of Evil" inconclusive.


My Own Proofs:

http://scienceblogs.com...:

The Foucault Pendulum:


The Foucalt Pendulum is a perfect pendulum that is situated on the Earth.
Little do people know, a pendulum (if made perfectly) will actually be AFFECTED by the Earth's rotation!
Over the course of two days, the pendulum will actually spin 360 degrees around the full circle!






The math (
http://en.wikipedia.org...) actually shows that the pendulum rotates at EXACTLY the same rate that Earth does!

This experiment PROVES WITHOUT A DOUBT that Earth rotates. And thus, your argument is Invalid!

Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

  • I must say, this debate is getting very fascinating. I'm very excited on how this will turn out.

Me too!

  • You said that Galileo admitted that he was wrong. But we must keep in mind that 1641 was one year away from Galileo's death. And as it is known, the Catholic Church would only release him from house arrest if he admitted that he was wrong. In 1638, he petitions the Inquisition to be freed and was denied. He was miserable. We CANNOT trust that his testimony is correct. He could have lied in order to be free.

That's actually a misrepresenation of history! Not trying to be rude, but the fact is that Galileo had already admitted he was wrong in 1633,(5) five years previously, and not only that, he agreed to endure any and all penalties he was to be given by the Church!

And by the way, that letter I quoted from Galileo, well, it was to a colleague, not to the Inquisition. That means it was private correspondance. So Con's hypothesis that Galileo lied as a desperate attempt to have his sentence reduced simply doesn't fit the facts. If Galileo had written the letter in order to impress the Inquisition, he would have wrote it to the Inquisition, or simply told them straight up in person.

  • Now you add Stephen Hawking into the mix: however, you added "[Geocentrism]" when Hawking didn't say that himself in The Grand Design. Take that word away, and your quote has just rebutted your Pro!

I replaced the word Ptolemy with Geocentrism. It doesn't change the meaning of the quote from Stephen Hawking at all!

  • You say that it is possible that the Earth is in the center of the Universe. But it is actually IMPOSSIBLE to determine where the center of the universe is!

Your source is dated 1997 and was written before we had the evidence I mentioned last round that proves Earth is the center. The author of your source wasn't aware of the Axis of Evil or of the rotation of the universe :(

  • "The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.

That's what most people thought in 1997, almost two decades ago! Science has progressed a lot since then.

  • In 1929 Edwin Hubble announced that he had measured the speed of galaxies at different distances from us, and had discovered that the farther they were, the faster they were receding. This might suggest that we are at the centre of the expanding universe, but in fact if the universe is expanding uniformly according to Hubble's law, then it will appear to do so from any vantage point."

That's simply not true! That's a misinterpretation of Hubble's Law. Hubble's Law only says that the red-shift of galaxies can show they are moving away from us. If a cop car drives away from you, the sound of it's siren changes. Similarly, if a galaxy moves away from us, the color of it's light changes. If it's moving toward us, it looks bluer, and if it's moving away, it looks redder. That's an oversimplification but you get the point I hope lol. Since Hubble noticed the galaxies around us look redder, he correctly reasoned that this is strong evidence we are in the center of the universe.

Now, even though Hubble knew this was evidence for Earth being the center, he simply didn't feel like believing it. But that's his personal opinion if he doesn't want to believe Earth is in the center. The fact is, the evidence showed Earth was in the center, and Mr. Hubble admitted it:

  • "[Red-shifted galaxies] imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth[...] This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort[...] Therefore we disregard this possibility[...] the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs[...] such a favored position is intolerable"
  • - The Observational Approach to Cosmology

So Hubble's Law actually proves Earth is in the center of the universe! Exactly the opposite of what Con tried to argue. :)

Con posted this picture of the universe:

Now, I appreciate Con's abiding by the rules to use a graphic in every round, but unfortunately, I have to point out that this is not a picture of the universe. In reality, the universe looks like spheres inside spheres inside spheres of galaxies all surrounding Earth in the middle. This picture from Con is actually a computer-simulation of what scientists wish the universe looked like. But it's not a photo of the universe! It's highly misleading. But I'm still glad Con is abiding by the rules.

  • This means that there is no center and there never has been! The Big Bang was simply the spontaneous explosion EVERYWHERE at the same time!

Actually if the Big Bang happened, it started from where Earth is. This is proven by Hubble's Law which shows all galaxies exploding outward away from the central point of Earth.

  • If you were to look out as far as you can in all directions. The maximum point that you can see to forms a sphere! This is known as the Observable Universe. That means that if you were to conduct your own experiment except on the Sun; then it would appear that the "Axis of Evil" forms a sphere around the Sun. Proving the "Axis of Evil" inconclusive.

Yes Con LOL I know that the observable universe being centered on the observer doesn't prove anything. But that's not what I'm saying. I don't think you understand my argument about the Axis of Evil. The Axis of Evil doesn't look the same from just anywhere in the universe. Here is a 2D version to illustrate my point:

<a href=http://www.nigelkerner.com...; />

Now you see that white line? That represents the Axis of Evil. If you pointed to the pixel right in the center, you know what would be there?
That's right. Earth would.

This isn't a relative thing. In other words, if you go out into space far away from the Axis, the Axis won't move with you to keep you in the middle. The chance that Earth would be in the middle of the Axis of Evil is less than 0.1%. And remember, I already proved the universe rotates around this axis in the last round. This means the universe rotates around Earth!

  • The Foucalt Pendulum is a perfect pendulum that is situated on the Earth.
  • This experiment PROVES WITHOUT A DOUBT that Earth rotates. And thus, your argument is Invalid!

Con's proof actually isn't proof at all, since if the universe is rotating around Earth, the same effect is observed! As Dr. Assis, professor of physics at the University of Campinas, explains:

  • Foucault’s pendulum is explained by a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the earth’s surface[...] the angular rotation of the distant masses around the earth[...] keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars.
  • - Relational Mechanics

This PROVES WITHOUT A DOUBT that the universe rotates around Earth. And thus, all your arguments are invalid!

:D


(5) http://law2.umkc.edu...

OverLordSandwich

Con

I'm going to first start off plain and simple: You don't know what you're talking about. My proof?

First: Are you suggesting, that Galileo, the one that is known to have coutered Geocentrism, would admit that he was wrong and go back on years of work? ANYONE WHO KNOWS Galileo or Stephen Hawking or Copernicus would know for certain that the quotes you give are incorrect. What you are doing is taking a quote and adding your own words to manipulate it to fit your argument! Everything in [] is added on by you! Making all the quotes you give invalid.

Second: Now you say that my source, that proved the Universe is ever expanding everywhere and there is no way to tell where the center is, was outdated. The website was, but the idea isn't! We know that the Universe is ever expanding. It has been proved time and time again! You cannot refute that!
http://skyserver.sdss.org...
http://www.npr.org...

Third: I know what the Hubble Law is! I didn't try to explain it! If you followed my link (which I know you did since you called it outdated) and read it, you would know that:
"Edwin Hubble announced that he had measured the speed of galaxies at different distances from us, and had discovered that the farther they were, the faster they were receding"
"This might suggest that we are at the centre of the expanding universe, but in fact if the universe is expanding uniformly according to Hubble's law, then it will appear to do so from any vantage point."
Had you read this, you would know that Hubble used his law to discover that there is no way to find the center of the Universe!


Now that I have proved that your refutes have no meaning and/or are inconclusive, I will start my own argument:

If Foucault's pendulum is caused by distant masses rotaing around the Earth and not Earth's rotation itself... then how do you explain the fact that multiple pendulums are placed around the world that have the same result as each other?! Are you going to say that there are multiple masses revolving around everyone one of those pendulums and those masses don't affect each other?! That would be preposterous! And the gravity wouldn't be even close to being able to move those pendulums around in that manner! And you provide a quote:

"Foucault’s pendulum is explained by a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the earth’s surface[...] the angular rotation of the distant masses around the earth[...] keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars."

But as I have said, the [] of your quotes are inputted by you! Which makes the quote invalid and your argument flawed...

Also, what about the movement of Mars in the night sky?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...






ARE YOU GOING TO SAY THAT MARS ORBITS THE EARTH LIKE THAT?
What about our atmosphere? Our jet streams?
Let me repeat: You don't know what you are talking about. All of you arguments are ignoring the basics! That means that Earth Rotates!


Debate Round No. 3
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

  • I'm going to first start off plain and simple: You don't know what you're talking about.

:O

  • Are you suggesting, that Galileo, the one that is known to have coutered Geocentrism,would admit that he was wrong and go back on years of work?

I didn't suggest it. I proved it by quoting Galileo himself. And I also provided a source that showed him admitted he was wrong several years previously. So we have Galileo on record admitting he was wrong twice.

  • the quotes you give are incorrect. What you are doing is taking a quote and adding your own words to manipulate it

It's called paraphrasing bro.

  • We know that the Universe is ever expanding. It has been proved time and time again! You cannot refute that!

I don't need to try. Just because the universe might be expanding doesn't mean the Earth has to be moving. This is simple common sense. The universe could be expanding outward in all 360 degrees away from Earth.

  • if the universe is expanding uniformly according to Hubble's law, then it will appear to do so from any vantage point.

This is simply nonsense, Con, I'm sorry your source is so awful. Hubble's law says absolutely nothing about expansion appearing the same from all reference points. It just says that red-shifts might mean galaxies are moving away from Earth. It says absolutely nothing about doing that "from any vantage point."

Moreover, since galaxies are arranged in multilayered, spherical shells around Earth, then if they are expanding away from Earth, it is both logically and physically impossible for this to be true for any other reference point besides Earth.

This is quite easy for me to prove. Imagine a balloon. Imagine it has a dot on it representing Earth. Now draw concentric circles around Earth. Now blow up the balloon, and watch the concentric circles expand around Earth. Notice how it is absolutely impossible to find any another vantage point on the balloon that is also surrounded by concentric, expanding circles.

There you go.

  • Had you read this, you would know that Hubble used his law to discover that there is no way to find the center of the Universe!

Had you read your own source, you would know Hubble did no such thing. And for the record, Hubble had serious doubts that red-shifts meant galaxies were moving away from us. It's ironic the law is named after him since he hardly believed it himself. I can quote him to prove it if you want. But I'm just sayin'.

  • If Foucault's pendulum is caused by distant masses rotaing around the Earth and not Earth's rotation itself... then how do you explain the fact that multiple pendulums are placed around the world that have the same result as each other?!

Lol... the same way you explain it with your false heliocentric model. The Coriolis Force. Except the Coriolis Force is caused by the stars and galaxies, etc. rotating around Earth.

  • the gravity wouldn't be even close to being able to move those pendulums around in that manner!

Really? You don't think the gravity of billions of stars and galaxies is strong enough to knock a little pendulum a tiny bit off course? Then I guess you don't believe the one moon has enough gravity to cause tides in the massive ocean.

  • Also, what about the movement of Mars in the night sky?
  • ARE YOU GOING TO SAY THAT MARS ORBITS THE EARTH LIKE THAT?

No lol. Mars orbits the sun, but the sun orbits Earth. That would be crazy for Mars to do that.

The whole universe rotates on the purple X, created by the Axes of Evil. Earth isn't perfectly in the center of the universe, as you can tell. However, this debate ony says Earth is immobile. I'm just proving Earth doesn't move. I don't have to prove it's the geometrical center, but it's extremely close. It really is the center of MASS though.

  • What about our atmosphere?

The atmosphere proves the Earth is immobile. If Earth were really shooting through space at 66,000 mph and spinning at 1,000 mph at the same time, you would get blown away as soon as you walked outside.
I mean, seriously. Take Venus for example. It's not even spinning 1/10 times as fast as you people say Earth is, but the winds on Venus are over 200 mph.(6) Neptune rotates every 20 hours(7) which is comparable to how fast you think Earth rotates. But it's constantly like a hurricane on Neptune. The wind blows over 700 mph!(8)

Meanwhile, aside from storms caused by temperature variation, Earth often enjoys total calm. There's no way Earth is spinning at 1,000 mph, much less flying around the sun at 66,000 mph.

Oh and by the way, I don't think I explained the spiral orbit of the sun around Earth well in the previous round with my graphic, so here's an animation that explains it better:

http://galileowaswrong.com...

  • Our jet streams?

They are caused by the Coriolis Force which I explained is caused by the rotation of the stars around Earth.

  • Let me repeat: You don't know what you are talking about. All of you arguments are ignoring the basics! That means that Earth Rotates!

You might think it do, but it don't.

(6) http://www.astronomy.com...

(7) https://pds.jpl.nasa.gov...

(8) http://www.bbc.co.uk...


OverLordSandwich

Con

In this round I am not going to produce any additional proofs; instead I will prove that your arguments and sources are invalid and/or contridicts yourself: Therefore proving that the debate is over and you have lost.


1:
"I didn't suggest it. I proved it by quoting Galileo himself."

The source you give: http://law2.umkc.edu... show that Galileo stated that he was wrong. However, you say that:

"And by the way, that letter I quoted from Galileo, well, it was to a colleague, not to the Inquisition."

When the site that you provided clearly shows him saying:
"I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General "

He directs his statement to the Inquisitors-General! Not only does your quote not come from the site you provided, it contridicts your argument!


2:

"It's called paraphrasing bro."

You say that your paraphrasing but you don't provide further information on what you changed in the quote. Instead, you ignore your mistake and manipulation, and move on to the next topic. Showing me and the audience that the paraphrased quotes have no meaning.


3:

"Hubble had serious doubts that red-shifts meant galaxies were moving away from us."

OK. But in the previous argument you said that:

"Hubble's Law only says that the red-shift of galaxies can show they are moving away from us."

Now we have a problem: You used Hubble's Laws in two different ways:
1) By defining it
2) By un-defining it

Another proof that your argument makes no sense.


4:

"Really? You don't think the gravity of billions of stars and galaxies is strong enough to knock a little pendulum a tiny bit off course? Then I guess you don't believe the one moon has enough gravity to cause tides in the massive ocean."

HaHa. You said that the small gravity of the moon can cause large tides... But:
1) Doesn't that mean that the moons gravity would affect Foucault's pendulum? Yet it doesn't?
2) And if large stars and galaxies are bigger than the moon... Whouldn't we have more tides? Yet we don't?

And you provide no factual evidence to back yourself up. You can't even refute Foucault's pendulum (http://en.wikipedia.org.....) because you don't have facts other than some faulty quote from one guy!
Making your argument (again) with no value.


5:

"No lol. Mars orbits the sun, but the sun orbits Earth. That would be crazy for Mars to do that."

That is the only thing you write to refute my argument... Proving that:
1) You are too lazy to find legit proof
2) You know that I'm right and you have no proof

Then you go back to The Axis of Evil which is after all (words by you):

"The chance that Earth would be in the middle of the Axis of Evil is less than 0.1%. And remember, I already proved the universe rotates around this axis in the last round. This means the universe rotates around Earth!"

You just said yourself that the chance of the Axis of Evil actually having any relationship to Earth is "less than 0.1%".
Yet you decide to avoid my Mars argument to re-define a already dead point...



6:

"The atmosphere proves the Earth is immobile. If Earth were really shooting through space at 66,000 mph and spinning at 1,000 mph at the same time, you would get blown away as soon as you walked outside."

This is getting fun. We wouldn't get blown away because of a thing called the atmosphere and gravity...

"Earth has more atmosphere than most of the other inner planets for two reasons: (1) gravity, and (2) volcanism. Being the most massive of all of the inner planets, Earth can hold more atmosphere to its surface by its gravity alone. Furthermore, volcanos continually spew out gasses into the Earth's atmosphere at a rate faster than they escape into space. Unlike Venus, however, which has an even thicker atmosphere, Earth also has oceans where gasses in the atmosphere are removed and crystallized into rocks."

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu...

Look at the sources and read it yourself. I would love to see you try to refute this point.


7:

"They are caused by the Coriolis Force which I explained is caused by the rotation of the stars around Earth."

The only proof that you have showing us that the Coriolis affect is caused by stars is a faulty quote with no source!
I don't even need to provide my own source but I will:

https://www.youtube.com...
NOVA


Now that I have undermined pretty much all of your arguments, quotes, and statements with 7 points, The next round will be for my own entertainment.

Great Debate!


Debate Round No. 4
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

  • He directs his statement to the Inquisitors-General!

Oh. my. gosh. I know, but I quoted Galileo twice, once to the Inquisition, and once to friend. Both times he admitted he was wrong about the Earth moving.

  • You say that your paraphrasing but you don't provide further information on what you changed in the quote.

What? Yes I did. I used brackets to indicate where I altered the original quote. If anyone suspects I deceptively altered the meaning of the original quotes, they can follow my sources to see the originals.

  • HaHa. You said that the small gravity of the moon can cause large tides... But:
    • 1) Doesn't that mean that the moons gravity would affect Foucault's pendulum? Yet it doesn't?
    • 2) And if large stars and galaxies are bigger than the moon... Whouldn't we have more tides? Yet we don't?

Yes, the moon does indeed affect the pendulum. But the moon orbits Earth in the same direction as the stars, so yea... I think that answers your objection.

Yes, the galaxies and stars are larger than the moon, but they are also further away. So I think that deals with that objection too.

  • And you provide no factual evidence to back yourself up. You can't even refute Foucault's pendulum (http://en.wikipedia.org........) because you don't have facts other than some faulty quote from one guy! Making your argument (again) with no value.

This is like what? The hundreth time you say my quotes are false and my arguments have no value? lol

  • 1) You are too lazy to find legit proof
  • 2) You know that I'm right and you have no proof

lol

  • You just said yourself that the chance of the Axis of Evil actually having any relationship to Earth is "less than 0.1%"

I was just pointing out how amazing it is that Earth is on the Axis. I was not questioning the reality that it does. Just saying that the Axis doesn't line up with Earth for no reason. It's because the universe rotates around Earth, duhh.

  • We wouldn't get blown away because of a thing called the atmosphere and gravity

No you got it backwards. We would get blown away specifically because of the atmosphere. If Earth is spinning at 1k mph and flying faster than a bullet around the sun, then the winds would be hundreds of miles an hour (like they are on other planets that actually move). Unless of course, gravity was so strong that it held the atmosphere down, however, the fact that I can walk through the atmosphere freely proves that it's being held very loosely by Earth's gravity. This means that, if Earth were really moving, the relative movement between the Earth and the atmosphere would be WILD. Like, Neptune, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter, etc. wild... and all those planets got winds of over 200 mph, some of them in the 10s of 1000s of mph! e.g. the winds on Saturn can hit 75,000 mph


But Earth? Sometimes the winds are zero mph. Because Earth is moving at ZERO mph.

  • Look at the sources and read it yourself. I would love to see you try to refute this point.

I just refuted it.

  • The only proof that you have showing us that the Coriolis affect is caused by stars is a faulty quote with no source!

Huh? I did give a source, and a very good one too. I cited the book Relational Mechanics written by physics professor Dr. Assis.

  • The next round will be for my own entertainment.

And my entertainment, as you fail miserably to rebut any of my arguments

  • Great Debate!

YES!

never thought I'd argue for this side of the debate lol

btw I didn't see a graphic in your last round :P now you have to put at least two in this one to make up for it

OverLordSandwich

Con

"Oh. my. gosh. I know, but I quoted Galileo twice, once to the Inquisition, and once to friend. Both times he admitted he was wrong about the Earth moving. What? Yes I did. I used brackets to indicate where I altered the original quote. If anyone suspects I deceptively altered the meaning of the original quotes, they can follow my sources to see the originals."

Um... You quotes him twice but only provided one source: (http://law2.umkc.edu......), which I believe in my previous argument, I proved contradicted yourself. And the quote didn't even come from that website! LOL!

"This is like what? The hundreth time you say my quotes are false and my arguments have no value? lol"

I thought I clearly already explored this point... But I guess you're too ignorant to realize this:
I say that your quotes have no meaning/value because they don't. I proved that the sources you provided didn't even have the quote you gave, and the source contradicted your own argument. And in this round, you provide no additional proof to refute my argument from the previous round. Making my accusation and abate completely valid. And your's, not...

"Yes, the moon does indeed affect the pendulum."

Again, where's your proof? The math and science (http://en.wikipedia.org......) shows definitively that Earth rotates. All you have to back your statement up is your own words. Means nothing in a real debate.

"I was just pointing out how amazing it is that Earth is on the Axis."

You provide two photos:




One photo showing Earth:

"Now you see that white line? That represents the Axis of Evil. If you pointed to the pixel right in the center, you know what would be there?
That's right. Earth would."
(your own words)


The other photo showing Earth:

"Earth isn't perfectly in the center of the universe, as you can tell."

Your reputation in this debate is dead! Not only did I prove multiple times your quotes and sources are invalid, I now proved that you provided pictures that are invalid as well! Is your information invalid? It's now a real possibility...

My words: Look at the sources and read it yourself. I would love to see you try to refute this point.

Your words: "I just refuted it."

No you didn't. You simply compared Earth to other planets without refuting the main point:
"Furthermore, volcanos continually spew out gasses into the Earth's atmosphere at a rate faster than they escape into space. Unlike Venus, however, which has an even thicker atmosphere, Earth also has oceans where gasses in the atmosphere are removed and crystallized into rocks."

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu......


And again, you provide no factual evidence.

"Huh? I did give a source, and a very good one too. I cited the book Relational Mechanics written by physics professor Dr. Assis."

Where's the hyperlink to his website or book? The full quote? No wait, there is none. Again: Your reputation in this debate is destroyed!

"And my entertainment, as you fail miserably to rebut any of my arguments"

Just did.

So in conclusion:
Audience, In my arguments from this round and the previous round, I have undermined and abated most (if not all) of my opponent's arguments; proving that they are invalid, inconclusive, or simply contradicts himself. I have provided many scientific and factual proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu......
http://skyserver.sdss.org......
http://www.npr.org......
that my opponent has not managed to counter other than invalid quotes/pictures and his own words.

Thus, proving that Earth moves and rotates.



Oh I almost forgot:

"btw I didn't see a graphic in your last round :P now you have to put at least two in this one to make up for it"

Here's a cat to show you how confident I am and how desperate you are say that:




Thank you for dabating! :)


Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
thx 4 voting
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
This has been a very fascinating debate, however I will not vote because 1) Grammar on both sides was very poor 2) Conduct on both sides was poor 3) I really can't decide who won because both sides ended up just finger pointing...
Nevertheless, interesting points from both sides, good job
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
wut my grammer is perfect
Posted by OverLordSandwich 2 years ago
OverLordSandwich
Not to mention, GarretKadeDupre, you clearly insulted me in this comment forum with very poor grammar.
The cat is VERY disappointed in you!

:(
Posted by OverLordSandwich 2 years ago
OverLordSandwich
9spaceking, I would like to point out that I didn't "skip over atmospheric argument for no apparent reason". I gave a credible source and argued my point. I would also like to point out that my accusations on Pro's arguments being invalid were supported by evidence that Pro couldn't refute.

Voters: I cannot stress enough that you please read ALL of the rounds before voting...

Thank you.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
lol spaceking ty
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
man this is hard to vote on; GDK's rockin' the house! I could feel his powerful emotion coursing through the computer network into me.
R2:
GDK: "Oh yeah baby, Earth don't move yeah, Axis of Evil can't effect us, Oh yeah!!"
OLS: "This is where my opponent is wrong...blah blah blah"

R3:
GDK: "Oh no you didn't man! This is space proof....this is where Galileo talks about my resolution! Oh yeah, earth doesn't move yeah!!"
OLS: "These sources will prove you wrong."

R4:
GDK: "Ohohoho, no no no!! Pendalum works in reality this way! Atmosphere pressure proves...earth is immobile!! Oh yay!"
OLS: *Utterly, almost completely, destroys GDK's case

R5:
GDK: "Not yet baby! Gonna hold onto atmospheric pressure plus some minor rebuttals for the victory oh yeahhhhh!!!
OLS: "GDK has no new arguments. Plus, my round 4 attack was awesome. Gonna clearly skip over atmospheric argument for no apparent reason. Gonna provide a load of sources like I did in round 2 and extend those arguments. Look at my cute cat now."
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
con im not gonna lie that cats looks disappointed in you

like it knows ur gonna lose
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
earth is not round, earth has no necessary shape
Posted by OverLordSandwich 2 years ago
OverLordSandwich
For Voters:

Please read the arguments CAREFULLY to prevent faulty votes.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
GarretKadeDupreOverLordSandwichTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought arguments and s and g were a tie. I thought Con was condescending sometimes, do conduct to Pro. I thought Con relied too much on Wikipedia, so Pro's sources seemed more reliable.
Vote Placed by chewster911 2 years ago
chewster911
GarretKadeDupreOverLordSandwichTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I have a feeling that Pro didn't claim that the entire universe ACTUALLY orbits around the Earth,but he reversed everything and made a convincing case of the Universe actually orbiting the Earth. I am not sure if that was Pro's intention tho,so i won't assume anything. I agree with 9spaceking. It's extremely hard to vote on this debate. I am having a tough time deciding what to do. I saw obvious flaws in Pro's argument,but when Con pointed them out and attacked them, Pro somehow managed to save his case. I'm leaving this tied until i decide what to do. Awesome debate,the first one that made me think so much actually!
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
GarretKadeDupreOverLordSandwichTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: this is insanely hard to vote on. I'm like 99% sure pro was arguing against a truism. Conduct to pro because con violated the one-graphic illustration-per-round rule in round 4. Tying the debate because it's GKD's word about the gravity "supposedly holding down atmosphere while not holding down ourselves" in contrast to con's differential evidence suggesting otherwise than pro's arguments. Con's no-graphic-round almost pulls it off and manages to almost completely destroy pro's case, if not for pro's smart decision to make this debate 5 rounds so as to have a chance to rebuild his arguments. It was mainly his atmosphere-gravity argument that held his arguments together, and con could not really manage to rebut this. Both dropped many important arguments, but I felt like con's most important argument was killed by pro. Even so, the rest of con's arguments still stood strong at the end, therefore arguments are tied. Good job to both of you.