The Instigator
Geocentricist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
R_Jacob_Percival_M
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Geocentrism

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 446 times Debate No: 103827
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Geocentricist

Pro

For my opponent to win this debate, he has to prove Earth moves. For example, he could try to prove it spins or orbits the sun.

All I have to do is refute his arguments to win.

Good luck.
R_Jacob_Percival_M

Con

Thank you for this debate, I am prepared to argue for the rotation and orbit of earth (but my spidey senses are tingling.)

Firstly, on the news, there has been many stories about the recent hurricanes impacting North America. These are Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. What is interesting to learn when predicting and studying the movement of hurricanes is that the direction they head, as well as the directions they turn, are mostly impacting by the Coriolis effect. You may have heard of the urban legend of toilets in Australia flushes the opposite way, but while this is not true, this, when applied to larger areas, such as an atmosphere, it is true. The speed and rotation of the Earth causes the differences in rotation of air patterns in the atmosphere. The Coriolis effect has even been seen on Jupiter, and is even more severe (source 1.)
Sources: https://www.nationalgeographic.org...
https://scijinks.gov...

While this is the most apparent source of learning that the earth rotates, another is the over 7,700 spacecraft, 530 astronauts, and the many countries that have had space programs and/or contain the ability to launch into space. http://claudelafleur.qc.ca.... Repeatedly, they have proven the movement of the Earth (by visual and by tracking means.) We also have launched the Voyager probes outside of the solar system, with the farthest being almost 13 billion miles, and they have turned around and captured Earth. This data, along with other probes, have proven the change in the earth, as well as the model of the heliocentric solar system.
https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov...

If anyone has questions on the rotation and orbit of the Earth, just message an astronaut. Here's a list of who is currently in space: http://www.howmanypeopleareinspacerightnow.com...
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Geocentricist

Pro

My opponent made two claims. The first is that the spin of Earth makes hurricanes spin, but he provides no proof.

The second is that we can watch Earth spin from probes, but he provides no proof for this either. It's not the Earth that we see spinning in space videos. It's the satellite-mounted camera that is spinning around the Earth that makes it seem like the Earth is spinning in the video.
R_Jacob_Percival_M

Con

My opponent claimed that I offered no proof. This is simply not true. As I said earlier, "The speed and rotation of the Earth causes the differences in rotation of air patterns in the atmosphere." To directly quote my source (source 2, Round 1; source 1, round 2,)
"It takes Earth 24 hours to rotate one time. If you are standing a foot to the right of the North or South Pole, that means it would take 24 hours to move in a circle that is about six feet in circumference. That"s about 0.00005 miles per hour. Hop on down to the equator, though, and things are different. It still takes Earth the same 24 hours to make a rotation, but this time we are traveling the entire circumference of the planet, which is about 25,000 miles long. That means you are traveling almost 1040 miles per hour just by standing there...So even though we are all on Earth, how far we are from the equator determines our forward speed. The farther we are from the equator, the slower we move."

Secondly, besides the ability for physicists to calculate the rotation of the earth in relation to probes or even just probes far away being able to watch as earth spins and moves around the sun (for instance the voyagers, or even the mars rovers communicating to Earth, the distance and timing of communications varies more drastically than if Mars orbited Earth[54.6 million km-401 million km, with 225 million being the average distance]) we have geosynchronous satellites. These satellites orbit the earth at the same velocity that the earth spins, causing it to orbit 24 hours/day, and therefore hover over a single spot on the Earth. If the Earth did not rotate, these orbits would continue like any other orbit.

In addition, your argument refuting my first claim was a logical fallacy, I believe it's argumentum ad lapidem, or argument to the stone. This is when you refute an argument as absurd without proving its absurdity. I did provide proof, as I stated and reiterated in paragraph one of this current round. Your second point had more reasoning to it, and I hope that I cleared it up with my second paragraph on geosynchronous orbits.

Sources:
https://scijinks.gov...
https://www.nasa.gov...
http://www.philosophyinaction.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Geocentricist

Pro

"It takes Earth 24 hours to rotate one time."

This is a claim that Earth rotates, not a proof. I reply with my own claim: "It takes the universe 24 hours to rotate one time."


It's very interesting that IF earth were rotating, we'd be traveling 1040 mph at the equator, but since you haven't proven Earth is rotating, you haven't won any argument.

"The speed and rotation of the Earth causes the differences in rotation of air patterns in the atmosphere."

Actually if we were traveling east at 1040 mph at the equator as you claim, the wind should be blowing 1040 mph at the equator in the opposite direction.

After all, you can feel the wind blowing if you stick your hand out a moving car at 60 mph, so why not if we're moving 1040 mph?

Ironically for you, the calmest winds in the world are where they should be the strongest if Earth were spinning ... the doldrums at the equator.

"The distance and timing of communications varies more drastically than if Mars orbited Earth."

This is a claim. Prove it. Draw a picture or something. The reality is that the distance between Mars and Earth remain the same whether we take Earth a reference point or not.

My opponent's second main argument is that geosynchronous satellites seem to hover over a single spot on Earth. He says if Earth didn't rotate, their orbit would be different. But since my opponent believes in Einstein's Theory of Relativity which says you can take any reference point, even Earth, to be motionless, my opponent needs to explain why he's contradicting his own theory at this point.

Does my opponent reject Relativity?
R_Jacob_Percival_M

Con

My opponent is misinterpreting my wording. Firstly, the source, and my earlier quotation, explained how the Coriolis effect was caused by the Earth's rotation. The direction, spin, and turning of hurricanes is directly related to the rotation of the Earth. To quote Hank Green, the Coriolis effect "refers to the earth's constant eastward rotation [and how it] influences how we view the trajectory of certain moving objects" (sources 1,2, round 3.)

And my opponent's reasoning for disagreeing with my previous quote about "The speed and rotation of the Earth causes the differences in rotation of air patterns in the atmosphere" is misguided. This is because the atmosphere rotates with the Earth as well, for the same reason that you do not go flying off because of the Earth's rotation. (source 3)

Actually, my favorite author/comic/physicist, Randall Munroe (of XKCD fame) explained this. In his book "What if?," he answers the following question: "What would happen if the Earth and all terrestrial objects suddenly stopped spinning, but the atmosphere retained its velocity?" In it, he explains that if the Earth was not spinning, the atmosphere would be drastically different. This is because the sun would be heating up only one side of the Earth (more on that later,) and this would cause the atmosphere facing the sun to scorch, causing massive heat storms. (full text on source 4, page 5 of Munroe's What If? book.)

For my opponent's last attempt at refuting my argument, they claim that I offered no proof. This is not true. To quote myself, in round 2, I stated that the distance between Earth and Mars varies drastically, from "54.6 million km-401 million km, with 225 million being the average distance." This leads to differences in timing of communications.

About your attack on my apparent rejection of physics, you are misinterpreting relativity. To quote source 5, "Special relativity predicts that an observer in an inertial reference frame doesn't see objects he would describe as moving faster than the speed of light. However, in the non-inertial reference frame of Earth, treating a spot on the Earth as a fixed point, the stars are observed to move in the sky, circling once about the Earth per day. Since the stars are light years away, this observation means that, in the non-inertial reference frame of the Earth, anybody who looks at the stars is seeing objects which appear, to them, to be moving faster than the speed of light."

If satellites remained motionless around a motionless Earth, then the force of gravity would bring them back down. But, if the satellites orbited a motionless Earth, there could, by definition, be no geosynchronous orbits (source 6.)

Furthermore, if my opponent is a geocentrist, as his debate topic, title, and username suggests, then the idea that the sun revolves around the Earth is absurd. We have measured the Sun's gravity from out of this solar system, all the way up to it itself. Its mass is also proven to absurdly larger than the Earth, and therefore, by the rules of the universe as written by Sir Isaac Newton, it is not possible for the Earth to have the Sun in orbit (don't doubt Sir Isaac, because "mah boy's wicked smaht"[Dear grammar nazi voters of debate.org, this is a reference, please show me mercy {and yes, I did work this argument in for that reference.}])

Yet another argument is the Doppler effect. To quote from source 7, it states that "The Doppler effect is the shift of frequency of light (or any electromagnetic radiation) due to the relative velocity of source and receiver. If they are moving toward each other, the frequency rises; if they are moving apart, the frequency decreases. We now have orbiting earth satellites that can image the earth with Doppler radar, primarily for gathering atmospheric data. This data confirms (a) the round shape of the earth, and (b) its rotation. We even put a cube corner light reflector on the moon that allows us to send a beam of laser light to the moon, which directly reflects back to the earth station that originated it. This can accurately measure the distance to the moon as it changes due to its orbital eccentricity. This can even measure the change in this distance due to the earth's rotation relative to the moon, confirming the round shape of the earth. Similar confirmation of the earth's shape and rotation comes from global positioning systems (GPS)."

Another example is again from source 7, where it says, "Some early philosophers denied the rotation of the earth. They argued that if it were rotating, a stone dropped from the mast of a ship would not fall to a point on deck directly below, but would fall behind the mast. Experiment proved otherwise, because, as Galileo argued, the stone at the top of the mast was initially moving just as fast as the deck below, and retains that speed as it falls. So he concluded that even on land, if the earth moves, a stone dropped from a high tower falls to a point directly below. So the earth's rotation, he said, doesn't affect motion of objects on earth.
But he was only approximately correct. There's more to this story. Galileo had not considered the fact that on a round rotating earth the top of a high tower actually moves faster than the ground at the base of the tower, due to it being farther from the center of the earth. So the stone at the top is also moving faster than the ground below, and retains this velocity all the way down. So it gets ahead of the ground and falls to the east of the point just below, opposite to the prediction of the flat earthers. The effect is small, because the difference in velocity at top and bottom is so small, but it is measurable with precision instruments. Flat earthers predicted the ball would fall beind the mast if the earth were moving, but it actually falls ahead of the mast. So the flat earther's experiment actually is another evidence for a round, rotating earth."

Once more, source 7 comes through (as well as many other sources corroborating,) in the fact that satellites orbiting the Earth are launching into space taking advantage of the Earth's spin. For the (relativity) simple math behind it, here's the full quote, "With the exception of satellites intended for polar orbits, they [satellites] are launched heading eastward. This requires the least fuel. If launched westward they would need to gain as much speed as the earth (in the wrong direction) plus the additional speed to achieve orbital speed. Satellites in low orbit must reach speeds of about 17,500 mph. The launch rocket on the launching pad already has velocity toward the East due to the Earth's rotation. Launches near the equator gain 1,000 mph from Earth's rotation."

Lastly (because my character limit and time/attention are running low,) another proof for a rotating Earth comes from atomic clocks, and, in source 7, this time referencing the New Scientist it states that, "Standards of length and time are now based on the microwave radiation from atomic energy level transitions. Cesium-133 has been used for this for several decades. Now strontium atoms offer a threefold increase in precision in such measurements. Einstein's special relativity theory predicts that clocks suffer time dilation when they are moving, and this has been experimentally conclusively confirmed. Now, with strontium clocks we can even compare the difference in speed between networked clocks located at different places on earth. In 2017 Pac"me Deva of the Paris Observatory and his colleagues did this, using optical fiber links between London and Paris, and one between Paris and Braunschweig, Germany. While this was reported in the press as a test of special relativity, it also serves as a measure of earth's axial rotation and its sphericity, since the cities being compared are at different latitudes, and therefore different distances, from the earth's axis, and have a different velocity due to that fact."

So, using my opponents argument, do they "reject Relativity?"

Sources:
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://physics.stackexchange.com...
http://io9.gizmodo.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.dictionary.com...
https://www.lhup.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
Geocentricist

Pro

'The direction, spin, and turning of hurricanes is directly related to the rotation of the Earth. To quote Hank Green, the Coriolis effect "refers to the earth's constant eastward rotation [and how it] influences how we view the trajectory of certain moving objects" (sources 1,2, round 3.)'

Since you direct us to your source for a complete explanation, I'll do the same:

To quote Miles Mathis, "[Coriolis Effects] cannot be the cause of the tight curve even in the largest hurricane, because Coriolis curves don't curve that much." (source 1)

"the atmosphere rotates with the Earth"

Impossible. If Earth were really rotating, it would not drag the entire atmosphere with it as if the atmosphere were a solid. There isn't enough friction between the atmosphere and the ground for that to happen. This is easily provable ... spin a basketball. There is a slight breeze near the surface but first, this breeze isn't fast enough to keep up with the ball's spin and second, this breeze is nonexistant as you move away from the ball.

If the atmosphere were a solid chunk of ice, yes it could be dragged into rotation with Earth. But it's not a chunk of ice, it's a gas, and it proves Earth isn't spinning.

"I stated that the distance between Earth and Mars varies drastically, from "54.6 million km-401 million km, with 225 million being the average distance.""

This distance variation would be the same whether Earth or Mars were taken as a point of reference. If we take Earth to be still, Mars is moving and the distance between them doesn't change. If we take Mars to be still, Earth is moving and still the distance between them doesn't change.

"anybody who looks at the stars is seeing objects which appear, to them, to be moving faster than the speed of light"

What's the problem with this? General Relativity says the stars actually are moving faster than light, and don't just seem to be ... they really are.

"If satellites remained motionless around a motionless Earth, then the force of gravity would bring them back down."

Wrong. I can explain this using aether: (see source 2) [begin quote]
  • Satellites orbiting near Earth (like LEOs / Low Earth Orbits) move eastward and take 1.5 hrs to orbit, so there's an east aether flow of -0.67 revolutions per hour
  • Satellites orbiting far from Earth (like stars!) move westward and take ~24 hrs to orbit, so there's a west aether flow of +0.042 rph

The conflict in direction between the two aether flows causes the natural rotation of cosmic objects in the Earth frame to vary with distance from Earth, from – to +.

THERE MUST BE A DISTANCE WHERE THE ROTATION CHANGES FROM – TO + ... WHERE THE ROTATION SEEN FROM EARTH IS ZERO (0).

Of course, this is the GeoStationary Distance, GSD. There is no rotation here, because the two counter-rotating cosmic aethers cancel. Objects at the GSD stay fixed above the observer, as if they were floating. [end quote]

"the idea that the sun revolves around the Earth is absurd."

So you don't believe in General Relativity? Because it says the sun can revolve around the Earth, no problem.

"Its mass is also proven to absurdly larger than the Earth, and therefore, by the rules of the universe as written by Sir Isaac Newton, it is not possible for the Earth to have the Sun in orbit"

The motion of the sun around Earth doesn't have to involve gravity. But if it does, there could be enough mass on the opposite side of Earth to counteract the sun's pull so that Earth doesn't get dragged into orbit around the sun. But in either case, General Relativity says the sun can revolve around the Earth so do you reject General Relativity?

"We now have orbiting earth satellites that can image the earth with Doppler radar, primarily for gathering atmospheric data. This data confirms (a) the round shape of the earth, and (b) its rotation."

No it does not confirm the rotation of Earth. It only confirms that either (A) Earth is rotating, or (B) the satellite doing the measurements is rotating. Of course since there are two options, you haven't proven your case.

"This can even measure the change in this distance due to the earth's rotation relative to the moon"

No, it actually measures the change in distance due to the moon's rotation relative to the Earth.

My opponent said a stone dropped from a tower will fall to the East of the base of the tower. I need him to link me to a peer-reviewed paper describing such an experiment being performed.

My opponent's argument using satellite launch speed fails because speed is relative. He says satellites in low orbit must reach speeds of about 17,500 mph, but if the Earth is used as a frame of reference the speed is that minus the supposed spin speed of Earth. What frame of reference is my opponent using to claim 17,500 mph? I'll tell you: he's using an imaginary frame of reference that doesn't physically exist, a frame that is spinning, relative to the Earth, westward at thousands of miles per hour (the exact number depends upon latitude).

"Einstein's special relativity theory predicts that clocks suffer time dilation when they are moving, and this has been experimentally conclusively confirmed."

If my opponent wants to bring up this type of experiment, he's going to have to cite a specific, peer-reviewed paper describing a specific example, and not a pop-sci article.

(1) http://milesmathis.com...
(2) www.reddit.com/r/Geocentrism/comments/36u57x/alfa_model_of_geostationary_satellites/

R_Jacob_Percival_M

Con

In my opponent's first attack, they claim that the Coriolis effect does not cause the turning and rotating of hurricanes. The source you used is a conspiracy theorist who is unable to prove his points against the standard of scientists. My sources, on the other hand, used information that has been proved time and again by both climatologists and physicists. For more information on what I said, see previous rounds.

Secondly, a basketball doesn't have noticeable gravity [citation needed](reference:https://xkcd.com....) A basketball does not hold an atmosphere under it's own force. Therefore, you cannot compare a basketball to Earth when it comes to holding an atmosphere. The atmosphere is large, and friction between the ground and Earth isn't what keeps the atmosphere in place, it is gravity. The Earth doesn't "drag" the atmosphere through space, it holds it with gravity and momentum. This is why small planets, such as Mercury, don't have an atmosphere - they are too small to sustain one.

Most importantly, if the Earth was truly motionless, you would reject the very notion of gravity. This is because, by definition, gravity is the force that pulls objects towards it core. This pulling causes the Earth to move (source 1, towards the end.) If the Earth was truly in a standstill, with even just the moon orbiting, it would soon be pulled into rotating. Now, if we factor in the Sun, with it supposedly (though physically impossible) orbiting the Earth, the Earth would pulled into rotating. Now, going back to the proven model of the solar system, with the sun at the center, the sun is also forced into rotating (sources 2-5.)

Now, for the more interesting of my opponent's argument: the aether. There is no proof that the aether exists: furthermore, it has been disproven multiple times, most notable by the Michelson-Morley experiment, first in 1887, and again several times since then (source 6.) On the other side, my proofs regarding gravity and the rotating Earth have been proven time and time again. This is why the statement "If satellites remained motionless around a motionless Earth, then the force of gravity would bring them back down" is true.This can be proven with a basketball, contrary to your previous statement. First, drop a basketball. It falls towards the Earth. Secondly, throw the basketball as high as you can. It falls back down. Now strap that basketball to a rocket and launch that sucker 35, 800 kilometers into the air, then cancel out its velocity (or don't- just send it straight up.) It's going to fall back to Earth because of gravity. The aether does not exist. There is no proof. Geosynchronous orbits remain over the same spot of the Earth, and this is to to the satellite's period of rotation matching that of the Earth's (source 7.)

Moreover, my opponent quoted a source from reddit, and the subreddit was /r/Geocentrism, which is not a scientific source. On the contrary, I have cited many scientists and reputable sources.

Also, my opponent accusing me of not believing in General Relativity because I stated that the Sun can't revolve around the Earth. This is wrong because GR refers to the framepoint of the viewer, rather than the gravity of the situation (pun intended, sources 8,9.) From the view of Earth, yes it looks like the Earth goes around the Sun. This doesn't make it true. From a point above the solar system, the Sun's gravity is more powerful than Earth's. Let me explain why. The simple truth is that the Earth is tugged on by the Sun's gravity- whether you say the Earth is in the center of the solar system or not- that's how gravity works. The Sun is much larger, by about 333,000 times as much, than the Earth. Therefore, the more massive object's gravity wins out. If the Earth was motionless next to the Sun, it would be pulled way closer to it, eventually burning up. This is for the same reasoning that satellites can not be motionless around Earth- gravity pulls things to its core (source 10.)

The next argument was that "the motion of the sun around Earth doesn't have to involve gravity." For this, I recommend source 11, source 12 if you want the explanation from NASA of source 11.

Next, my opponent comments the logical fallacy of argumentum ad lapidem. Ad lapidem because they simply state that I'm wrong, and haven't proven my case even though I cited it. The mathematical explanation is source 13.

My opponents next arguments contradict my previous source from round 3 (source 7) and did not prove their counterpoint effectively.

My opponent also misstated my argument. I was, and am, correct because it has been proven by countless rocket launches that prove eastward burns off Earth are more efficient than other burns, such as polar or westward burns. My source 14, NASA, gives a good example of a test experiment that anyone with a playground can test. This playground test matches data from actual launches that a spinning planet gives a 'boost' when launching rockets off.

If my opponent wants proof on the atomic clocks suffering time dilation as predicted by relativity and proving a rotating Earth they can see my sources 15-24.

Another point on the Coriolis effect- it can effect long distance projectiles. Here's a quote from source 25, also source 7 in previous round. "During a World War I naval engagement near the Falkland Islands British gunners were puzzled why their precisely aimed guns were falling to the left of the German ships. Their guns had been corrected for the Coriolis effect"but for the Northern hemisphere. The Falkland islands happen to be in the Southern hemisphere. So the guns failed to correctly account for the earth's rotation." Furthermore, "Long distance projectiles and unguided missiles must be launched at a calculated angle and direction if they are to hit their targets. This requires taking the earth's rotation into account in the calculations."

Sources:
http://io9.gizmodo.com...
https://www.nasa.gov...
https://www.universetoday.com...
https://www.livescience.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.dictionary.com...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...
https://www.physicsforums.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
Source 11: https://www.youtube.com...
Source 12: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov...
https://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu...
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov...
Source 15: https://www.sciencealert.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
https://www.newscientist.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.scientificamerican.com...
https://www.scientificamerican.com...
https://physics.stackexchange.com...
http://www.askamathematician.com...
http://www.phys.lsu.edu...
Source 25: https://www.lhup.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
Geocentricist

Pro

"The source you used is a conspiracy theorist who is unable to prove his points against the standard of scientists."

This is a debate between me and you to prove before the voters, not whatever standard whatever scientists have.
Here, I've made an illustration to get my point across.

As you see, the Coriolis Force is the opposite direction of Earth's rotation. It pushes a north wind (southbound wind)

to your left, and it pushes a south wind also to the left. This does not make a spiral or any cyclone shape! In your
imaginary world, the Coriolis Force would have to push the first red arrow in the opposite direction in order to
complete a circle and make a cyclone. But it doesn't!

You can prove my image is correct using a baseball and a red marker. You will find that if the ball is spinning to the
right and you try to draw a line from the top to the bottom, that line will curve just like my picture shows, and the
same applies if you draw a line from the bottom to the top while the ball is spinning (slowly, in your hand of course).

"A basketball does not hold an atmosphere under it's own force. Therefore, you cannot compare a basketball to
Earth when it comes to holding an atmosphere."

Actually ...


I actually can. The Earth's gravity creates the same exact air pressure pushing on the ground as it does on
the surface of the basketball, 15 pounds per square inch. Therefore my analogy is perfectly valid!

As you see, the force of gravity can only hold the atmosphere near the Earth (and the ball). It cannot and will not spin
the atmosphere, because gravity only pushes the air downward. It doesn't push sideways around the Earth.

"Most importantly, if the Earth was truly motionless, you would reject the very notion of gravity. This is because, by
definition, gravity is the force that pulls objects towards it core."

Of course I don't reject gravity. I just used it to prove my own point. Anyway, Isaac Newton himself admitted there
can be a nother force besides gravity which would prevent Earth from being pulled around the sun so that Earth
could remain motionless in the center of the universe:

"Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in
equilibrium between
these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around
the Earth at rest"
(source 3)


"There is no proof that the aether exists: furthermore, it has been disproven multiple times, most notable by the
Michelson-Morley experiment"

False. The Michelson-Morley experiment proved that Geocentrism is true. They shot a lightbeam in the direction
they thought Earth was moving, and expected it to move slower than a lightbeam going the opposite direction,
because they would be catching up with the first light beam but zooming away from the second. They actually
found both lightbeams traveled the same speed, proving Earth isn't moving at all.


"Geosynchronous orbits remain over the same spot of the Earth, and this is to to the satellite's period of rotation
matching that of the Earth's"

No, it's because Earth isn't moving but two counter flows of aether hold the satellite in place in the sky. I already
explained this to you. You haven't proven the aether idea wrong. In fact, since I've proven in other ways how Earth
can't be spinning, you actually have to admit there's an aether holding the satellite up.


Also, General Relativity says Earth can be not spinning, and the satellite would still float in the air because it would
be held up by the force of the stars. Don't believe me? You don't have to. Just believe Einstein (I replaced K and K'
with 'the universe' and 'Earth' since that's what his notation stood for):


Let the universe be a Galileo-Newtonian coordinate system and let Earth be a coordinate system
rotating uniformly
relative to the universe. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest
in the Earth coordinate system
[like geosynchronous satellites!], while no such forces would be present for
objects at rest in the universe.


Already Newton [and my debate opponent!] viewed this as proof that the rotation of Earth had to be
considered as
"absolute," and that the Earth could not then be treated as the "resting" frame of the
universe.


Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such
centrifugal forces
as originating from the motion of the Earth; one could just as account for them as
resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses
[like stars!] as evidenced in
the vicinity of the Earth, whereby the Earth is treated as being at rest.


So you see, my dear opponent, Einstein admits that the force holding up your geosynchronous satellites while Earth
remains non-rotating is the centrifugal force caused by the stars spinning around a motionless Earth.

Do you reject Einstein?

"I was, and am, correct because it has been proven by countless rocket launches that prove eastward burns off Earth
are more efficient than other burns"

That doesn't prove Earth is spinning. It just proves you don't understand the concept of relative motion and how speed
is relative to what you're measuring it from.

From your point of view, where Earth is considered to be spinning eastward at 1000 mph at the equator, you
necessarily interpret the speed of launch to be its speed relative to the ground, plus the 1000 mph spin of Earth.


But from my point of view, the real one where Earth is not spinning eastward, it is space that is spinning westward at
1000 mph, so I interpret the rocket shooting towards the stars faster not because the rocket got some boost, but
because the stars are moving westward towards the rocket (unlike in your perspective, where they aren't moving).


See? You interpret eastbound rockets getting closer to the fixed stars as the rocket being boosted by Earth, but I
interpret it as the stars moving towards the rocket without Earth spinning at all.


"If my opponent wants proof on the atomic clocks suffering time dilation as predicted by relativity and proving a
rotating Earth they
can see my sources 15-24."


None of these sources are peer-reviewed, like I asked.

"Another point on the Coriolis effect- it can effect long distance projectiles"

I didn't deny that. But in Geocentrism the cause of the Coriolis effect isn't an eastward spinning Earth, it's a
westward spinning aether. A westward spinning aether will cause the same effect. And in your General
Relativity that you believe in, it's the rotating stars that cause the effect, like Einstein said.


(3) Newtonian Relativity: A Neglected Manuscript, an Understressed Corollary, by George E. Smith of Tufts University
R_Jacob_Percival_M

Con

My opponent argues that we only have to prove to voters about whether the Earth moves or not. However, we must prove this with scientific rigor- that is the very basis of all science facts. My opponent further proves my point by insisting that the scientific method is not important. That “whatever standard whatever scientists have” is actually important- it is how we know how anything works. Without scientific rigor, science would be rooted more into philosophical thought rather than reality testing. My points, most especially the Coriolis effect, satellite launches, satellite orbits, gravitational pulling of all orbiting bodies, etc. have been, and constantly are, tested repeatedly.

My point against my opponent was that they backed their counterclaims with weak evidence. The 25 sources I used, in contrast, were educational and governmental sites, reliable sources, based in scientific rigor and the scientific method.

My opponent insists that

"This [Coriolis effect] does not make a spiral or any cyclone shape! In your imaginary world, the Coriolis Force would have to push the first red arrow in the opposite direction in order to complete a circle and make a cyclone. But it doesn't!"

This however, does not hold up. As I have argued since round one, hurricanes are directly caused by the Coriolis effect, and this effect is caused by the rotation of the Earth. For more information, see previous rounds, sources, and the following diagrams.




The coriolis effect also affects the global ocean currents as well the air currents and development of hurricanes as described in my previous sources and diagrams.
For my opponent’s next argument, they contest that a basketball has comparable gravity to the Earth’s. Even in their diagram, they show that, inch for inch, gravity is the same on Earth as on a basketball in outer space. However, a basketball is much smaller than the Earth [citation needed](reference:xkcd.) Therefore, the gravity of a basketball cannot be compared to the gravity of Earth, rendering their point invalid. Furthermore, the Planetary Science Institute states that, “The smaller the object, the lower the gravity, so the escape velocity is lower and it is harder to retain an atmosphere (Moon and Mercury).” Therefore, the comparison between spinning a basketball on Earth and comparing it to the entire Earth’s atmosphere is absurd. Thirdly, if you are spinning a basketball on Earth, the Earth’s gravity is the dominating force, so a basketball wouldn’t grow an atmosphere. For more, see sources 1 and 2.

Next, my opponent argues,

“As you see, the force of gravity can only hold the atmosphere near the Earth (and the ball). It cannot and will not spin the atmosphere, because gravity only pushes the air downward. It doesn't push sideways around the Earth.”

This is wrong because gravity does hold the atmosphere to the Earth, and the rotation of the Earth causes the Coriolis effect, which pushes the air sideways. I have proven this in my previous rounds and earlier in this one.

My opponent’s only counter to the rotation of the Earth is the aether, a medieval attempt at explaining why things appear to rotate around Earth, when, since then, we have proven, as I have shown in my other arguments, that the Earth spins and moves around the sun.

My opponent points out that “Isaac Newton himself admitted there can be a nother force besides gravity which would prevent Earth from being pulled around the sun so that Earth could remain motionless in the center of the universe.” This is a theory by the beloved scientist to attempt to explain why things appear to orbit the Earth. This was proven wrong, as it was created over 250 years before anything went to space. We have launched many probes far off into space, the farthest being nearly 13,000,000,000 miles from Earth (source 3.) The voyager probes have looked back at Earth, in addition to their constant communications with Earth. They also show that other planets move, and, as described by my previous arguments and rounds, this movement would pull on whatever body it orbits and force it to move. So, if the planets orbit the Sun, the Sun would be forced into rotating about itself, and if the planets and the Sun defy gravity, and orbited Earth, the Earth would be forced into rotating. That is the very basis of gravity.

Furthermore, we have not ever found some force “equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun,” and this does not hold up to scientific rigor or the scientific method, their counterpoint is rendered invalid.

My opponent also does not understand what the Michelson-Morley experiment was about. If you read my previous sources, there it did not prove that Earth did not move, rather it proved that the aether does not exist. To quote my source 4, “If aether exists, the Earth moving through it would cause a "wind" in the same way that there seems to be a wind outside a moving car. To a person in the car, the air outside the car would seem like a moving substance. In the same way, aether should seem like a moving substance to things on Earth. The interferometer was designed to measure the speed and direction of the "aether wind" by measuring the difference between the speed of light traveling in different directions. It measured this difference by shining a beam of light into a mirror that was only partially coated in silver. Part of the beam would be reflected one way, and the rest would go the other. Those two parts would then be reflected back to where they were split apart, and recombined. By looking at interference patterns in the recombined beam of light, any changes in speed because of aether wind could be seen. They found that there was in fact no substantial difference in the measurements. This was puzzling to the scientific community at the time, and led to the creation of various new theories to explain the result. The most important was Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity.” See also: Source 5.


My opponent further steps into the realm of ancient pseudoscience by insisting that I “have” to agree that their idea of an unproven, scientifically disproven, is true, even when I have given multiple examples of science disagreeing with these so-called “aether flows.” On the contrary, my point of "Geosynchronous orbits remain over the same spot of the Earth, and this is to to the satellite's period of rotation matching that of the Earth's" has been proven time and time again by the countless satellites and probes launched.


As I have stated, “my dear opponent,” your interpretation, shown by your interjections in the quote, is misinterpreted. Besides the fact that we are so far away from the stars, and therefore their gravity can not have any noticeable impact on our interior solar system (source 6,) I do not reject Einstein.If we go to a fixed point above the solar system, or even the probes we’ve sent, we can see that it is the Earth that orbits the Sun.


In fact, General relativity proves that the Earth orbits the Sun. This is because the mass of the Sun is greater than the mass of the Earth, and pulls Earth into orbit. In fact, if anything was interacting with Earth, it would force it to move, no matter how small. To quote my source 7, CalTech, “As we shall see, it curves space, it slows the flow of time, and it drags space into tornado-like motions — at least that is what Einstein’s general relativity predicts.”


My opponent states that my claim, citing NASA, that rockets burn more efficiently when taking advantage of Earth’s eastward rotation “doesn't prove Earth is spinning.” It has nothing to do with relative motion- the fact is that they burn LESS fuel when going eastward because the Earth’s rotation throws the rocket out like a sling. See my source 14 on the last round.


If my 9 sources showing how time dilation works, including a video of the experiment, is not enough for my opponent, they can review my sources 8 and 9 here. Source 9 shows the many experiments proving time dilation and Earth’s spin.


In addition, and most noticeably, the rotation of the Earth about its axis causes the seasons. The part of the Earth closest to the Sun is in summer (June-August, northern hemisphere, December-February, southern hemisphere,) and farthest away is in winter. This cannot be caused by any “aether.”

In conclusion, if the Sun, let alone all the other bodies of the solar system, or the entire universe, as my opponent claims, gravity from the more massive Sun would AT LEAST pull the Earth towards it. That is the nature of gravity. If you drop a basketball from a plane it will move towards Earth. And, if by some magical, unproven, way that the Earth remains at the center of the universe, it would be tugged on by the many bodies orbiting it. Even the Sun moves- both by rotating and by moving through the galaxy, and the galaxy through the local system. If the Earth somehow took the place of the Sun, it would AT LEAST rotate. This, in addition to the numerous other proven facts that I put forward, proves that my point that the Earth moves at all is true, while my opponent has not been able to disprove my points without dropping into untested, disproven pseudoscience.

Thank you for this debate, and good luck in any further debates.

Sources:

1:https://www.psi.edu...

2:http://www.pbs.org...

3:https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov...

4:https://simple.wikipedia.org...

5:https://www.khanacademy.org...

6:https://www.nasa.gov...

7:https://www.cco.caltech.edu...

8:https://www.omicsonline.org...

9:http://research.omicsgroup.org...

Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by R_Jacob_Percival_M 9 months ago
R_Jacob_Percival_M
1. For our purposes no basketball that can spin in our hand can hold an atmosphere. Until we can find a basketball planet, it cannot show anything.

2. The rotation of other planets have been shown to cause the rotation of atmospheres (see atmospheric probes to jupiter)

3. The Earth's gravity doesn't "push the atmosphere against the basketball," it pushes it against the Earth. The Earth's gravity is superior.

4. There is no proof that the universe is spinning around the Earth, while my arguments have shown numerous examples of why it does spin, how it does spin, etc. GR is not geocentrist either, as I explained in my arguments. It's all about perception. There is no way for the universe to rotate around the Earth, as our gravity is not that strong.
Posted by Geocentricist 9 months ago
Geocentricist
I do admit I've since realized I was wrong about the Coriolis Force though. However in General Relativity it can be caused by the rotating universe when Earth is not rotating.
Posted by Geocentricist 9 months ago
Geocentricist
Jacob it's a shame you did not understand my basketball analogy. I did not say a basketball has the same gravity has Earth. I was trying to say that -- for our purposes -- it does, since the atmosphere is being pushed towards the ball exactly as hard as it is being pushed towards Earth by Earth's gravity.

It's is Earth's gravity that pushes the atmosphere against the basketball, not the basketball's gravity. Lol. Atmospheric pressure.
Posted by R_Jacob_Percival_M 9 months ago
R_Jacob_Percival_M
But the burden of proof still lies with counterarguments. If I were to say that cows don't fly, with citations that they don't and my opponent simply says that they can, without any scientific proof, then they are wrong in their rebuttal.
Posted by Geocentricist 9 months ago
Geocentricist
SheBlindedMeWithScience, I define the terms of the debate as I wish, and the terms were that I do not have the burden of proof.
Posted by R_Jacob_Percival_M 9 months ago
R_Jacob_Percival_M
Well, they did say in round one that I must provide my claims and they only have to prove me wrong. That said, I do agree, as I mentioned in the debate, that they have to have facts to back their counterclaim.
Posted by SheBlindedMeWithScience 9 months ago
SheBlindedMeWithScience
Geocentrist, not sure you understand this whole debating thing. You are making the geocentric claim, the burden of proof is on you. It's not con's responsibility to prove the negation of your claim. Extraordinary claims and such.
Posted by HandCoppersmith 9 months ago
HandCoppersmith
"My opponent's second main argument is that geosynchronous satellites seem to hover over a single spot on Earth. He says if Earth didn't rotate, their orbit would be different. But since my opponent believes in Einstein's Theory of Relativity which says you can take any reference point, even Earth, to be motionless."

It doesn't matter if the earth orbits the satellite or the other way around. Either way, it proves the earth moves according to pro's opening statement. Geostationary satellites prove either 1) The earth orbits the satellite, therefore the earth moves, or 2) The satellite orbits the earth. Because the satellite is geostationary and remains over the same point on the earth's surface, earth must be spinning at the same rate the satellite orbits. Therefore the earth moves.
Posted by gurghet 9 months ago
gurghet
About your rebuttal on satellites, you can view this video https://vimeo.com... here you can clearly see the earth spinning, or equivalently the whole universe spinning. Clearly the camera is moving at the same speed of the Earth and yet the satellite don"t fall down. This is a clear proof they are moving, and since they don"t appear to move, as the Earth don"t appear to move, it means the rest of the universe is spinning or equivalently, the Earth is spinning.
No votes have been placed for this debate.