All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

# The Earth goes around the Moon

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Debate Round Forfeited
SuckItRed has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 10/28/2016 Category: Science Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period Viewed: 568 times Debate No: 96497
Debate Rounds (5)

 Pro u can't prove the earth doesn't go around the moon if the moon spins at the same rate the earth revolves we would still only see one side of the moon which we DO so maybe it could go either way but it just make more sense that the earth goes around the moonReport this Argument Con Hello, I will be first making my case and then refuting my opponent's single argument. Because I am slightly confused with the terms used I will present some common definitions my opponent and I can both use to reduce confusion. Orbit: The curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon. Revolution: The rotation of a celestial body on its axis. The first argument against this view would be how planets orbit each-other. First let me explain the current, "accepted," model. The sun orbits the milky way galaxy every 23 million years and revolves every 25 days. The earth orbits the sun once per year and revolves every 23 hours and 56 minutes. The moon orbits the earth every 27 days and doesn't revolve.[1] In this model we see that the continual trend is to orbit a larger object than yourself; galaxy-sun, sun-earth, earth-moon. This is the case because the laws of gravity state that if an object is larger it creates more gravity. And the more gravity an object has, the more it will influence other objects. According to this source; At Earth"s surface the acceleration of gravity is about 9.8 metres per second. Thus, for every second an object is in free fall, its speed increases by about 9.8 metres per second. At the surface of the Moon the acceleration of a freely falling body is about 1.6 metres per second.[2] If a larger body were to orbit a smaller body there would be a few problems. First the balance would need to be perfectly balanced. For example, if a ballerina were to dance with a giant if the ballerina tried to spin the giant around, she would need to spin with just the right amount of power and speed or she would fall over. In the same way if the earth were to orbit the moon, it would either have to orbit a lot closer, or orbit a lot slower. That way the moon won't be pulled out of balance. This causes it's own problems. First if the earth were to orbit slower, the tides would be very long in there cycles, which is easily provable to not be the case. Second if the earth were to orbit a lot closer to the moon the tides would be enormous. And I don't need to explain what would be wrong with that. Second if the earth was to orbit around the moon, you would have to assume that every other planet does the same thing, or that earth is totally unique, or that there is a random chance for both. This just isn't the case, besides for the semi-rare occurrence of two bodies of almost exactly the same size,( which still deteriorate and collide over time) every small object I have found, heard of, or seen always orbit larger objects. Finally to address my opponent's case. The only thing I can gather from my opponent's side is that his model would work to keep the same side of the moon facing earth the whole time, and the only reason that he said to prefer his case is that it makes more sense. First I don't know about you,(readers) but it doesn't make any sense to me. And second science and truth aren't about making sense necessarily, but to find answers that match the evidence. As a final note, if my opponent isn't being serious, but just wants to have a fun debate, don't take it personal :) [1]http://www.solarsystemscope.com... [2]https://www.britannica.com...Report this Argument This round has not been posted yet. This round has not been posted yet. This round has not been posted yet. This round has not been posted yet. This round has not been posted yet. This round has not been posted yet. This round has not been posted yet. This round has not been posted yet.
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Edril 1 year ago
It has to do with relativity. If object A is moving towards object B at 30 mph relative to earth's surface and B is moving towards A at 20 mph the following can all be said:
1. A is moving at 30 mph and b is moving at 20 mph
2. A is stationary relative to B which is moving towards A at 50 mph.
3. B is stationary relative to A which is moving towards B At 50 mph.
4. A is moving towards B at 40 mph and B is moving towards A at 10 mph.
4. Any other distribution between the 2 that equals 50 mph.

All of these statements are true; any 2 objects moving relative to each other have equal claim to being stationary.

The train moves at aprox. 60mph RELATIVE TO EARTH'S SURFACE.
The Earth spins at aprox. 24,000 mph at the equator. RELATIVE TO EARTH'S CORE.
The Earth "orbits" the Sun at aprox. 66,000 mph RELATIVE TO THE SUN.
The Solar System speed measured vs CMB is 1 million mph RELATIVE TO THE GALACTIC CORE.
Other measurements place the speed at 4 times that
Posted by toocoolblue 1 year ago
You get on a train and fall asleep, then wake up and look through the window to see the scenery passing by.
1. The World is standing still, while the Train is moving.
2. The Train standing still while the World is moving.
3. Both the Train and the World are moving.

Because if both are moving then how can you truly say one object is the center and another is the orbiter?

The train moves at aprox. 60mph
The Earth spins at aprox. 24,000 mph at the equator.
The Earth "orbits" the Sun at aprox. 66,000 mph
The Solar System speed measured vs CMB is 1 million mph
Other measurements place the speed at 4 times that.
Posted by Edril 1 year ago
Technically, any 2 objects in motion have equal claim to being stationary relative to the other. From my perspective, the entire universe revolves around me
Xp
Posted by UchihaItachi 1 year ago
Seems like pro doesn't know about gravity at all.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.