The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
GORGIAS
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Earth is not standing still, it is in constant motion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,799 times Debate No: 20514
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

imabench

Pro

I am challenging the Con to this debate since he invited to debate me on this topic.

I will debate that the Earth is indeed moving,
He will debate that the Earth is standing perfectly still

The Con may use the opening round for arguments
GORGIAS

Con

Thank you Pro for initiating this debate. I am aware of the massive burden of scientific studies that I am facing. I can not expect to prove beyond doubt that the world isn't spinning. I can only hope to show that many of the studies are in fact "theories" and not 100% factual information.

In our everyday lives we see many things done that seem impossible. Magic tricks give the audience the idea something incredible happened. The truth is lost in the confusion.
I requested that you challenge me to the debate so I could refute your claim. I would like to remind my opponent that his responsibilty for being on the 'Pro' side of the debate doesn't stand at decreasing the belief against the world standing still. It stands at proving that the world is not standing still as the title states "The Earth is not standing still, it is in constant motion."

Thank you, I await your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

Reasons why the Earth is standing still
1) We have days
2) We have seasons
3) Satellites have shown that the Earth moves
4) The Coriolis effect is a property caused by Earth's motion
5) The stars cannot physically move fast enough around the Earth each day if it was standing still
6) The Sun would have destroyed the Earth long ago if it were standing still
7) The Moon

1) The most obvious evidence we have that the Earth is moving is the fact that each and every day, the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Since the Sun is hundreds of times larger than the Earth that means that the Sun has a much more massive gravitational pull on Earth than the Earth has on the sun, which means it is physically impossible for the sun to be orbiting around the Earth each day since the Earth's gravitational pull is far more inferior than the sun's is

Gravity is basically mass x distance. The larger an object is the more gravity it will have, and the closer and object is to another object the stronger the gravitational force is. Earth is pretty far away from the sun, and the Sun's gravity is far more powerful than the Earths which implies that the Earth is a product of the Sun's gravitational influence, not the other way around.

2) Seasons are another obvious example of the Earth's movement. As the Earth orbits around the sun, the tilt of the Earth on its axis causes the amount of sunlight coming from the Sun to strike different parts of the Earth as the year progresses. During winter months, the Earth's tilt causes sunlight to strike the southern hemisphere more than the northern hemisphere since the Earth's tilt causes the Southern hemisphere to be more exposed to the sun than the north. Then during Summer months the exact opposite happens where Earth's tilt then causes the northern hemisphere to receive more sunlight than the south would. Seasons happen as a result of Earth's yearly revolution around the sun.

3) The number of satellites currently in Earth orbit has recorded the Earth moving innumerable times. Since all satellites move constantly in different directions but all observe the Earth spinning around its axis one rotation per 24 hours, it is quite easy to see that the Earth is indeed moving.

4) The Coriolis effect is basically an effect caused by Earth's movement which causes objects to be going in a straight line to begin to turn due to Earth's rotation. Its a concept kind of hard to understand, so here's a link that could enlighten you
http://geography.about.com...

5) If the Earth were standing still, then that means all the stars in the universe would have to orbit around Earth, which is impossible in two ways. One is Earths minimal gravitational pull being unable to cause billions of stars light years away to orbit around it, and the other is that its just flat out impossible for those stars to reach the speeds necessary enough to orbit around the Earth.

Some of the nearest stars are about 20 light years away from the Earth. The distance needed to travel around the Earth in an orbital fashion would be the distance of the star from the Earth mutiplied by two and then multiplied by pi, or quite simply, Diameter x pi = circumference or the distance the star would have to travel in a day.

20 light years away, times 2, x 3.14 is just over 120 light years. 120 light years is the distance necessary for some stars to rotate around the Earth every DAY if the Earth were to be standing still, otherwise the heavens would not be in the same place every night like they are. However nothing can travel over the same distance in a day that it takes light, the fastest thing out there, to travel in 120 YEARS. Therefore the Earth must be moving since the stars that appear at night are unable to achieve the speeds necessary to orbit the Earth given their huge distance away from the Earth.

6) If the earth were standing still, then the Sun, which has a large gravitational pull on the Earth, would have sucked the Earth to its fiery demise long, long ago. But since this has not happened and since the Sun does not orbit around the Earth, that means that other forces are at play causing the Earth to not be pulled into the sun and that is because of Earths inertia. The Earth is moving around the sun at such high speeds that the Sun's gravitational pull is only strong enough to keep it in orbit around the Sun in the vacuum of space meaning not only is the Earth moving, but its hauling a**

7) The Moon was not always the Earth's planetary brother, at one point it was its own rogue planet drifting through space, until it literally ran into our beloved planet long ago. The impact from the moon (which at one point was the size of mars) striking the Earth surely must have caused the Earth to move since it was a glancing blow,

(if the moon struck the earth head on, the two would have just absorbed each other and formed a really weird looking planet, but it was a glancing blow which means the moon hit the Earth, lost quite a lot of mass, and then drifted back into space only to become the Earth's cosmic neighbor)

Such a massive collision though surely would have given the Earth movement, and because an object in motion will stay in motion, the Earth would have no reason to stop in the vacuum of space, where there is no force large enough to cause the Earth to stop moving over time since its quite literally empty.

I will end here for now....
GORGIAS

Con

Thank you for the timely response.

Pro has a total of seven contentions, and only two are directly observable. Pro uses opinions that are based on theory and phrases them as; "this fact". He claims "impossibility" in "two ways" then proceeds to state two reasons that are only "theoretically" correct.
I would like to remind Pro where the definition of Theory stands-

Theory - A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

A theory is an idea. Isaac Asimov once called a theory an "Assumption" and "something accepted without proof" and stated that "it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false".

1)Pro says; "The most obvious evidence we have that the Earth is moving is the fact that each and every day, the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west."

I agree with Pro on this factual statement. An Orb of light which we call "The Sun" follows an arched path through our sky just as he says. Lets think about "why" It is accepted as evidence. That rabbit hole isn't very deep. Pro believes* the popular "theory". That is not "evidence" of the earth moving. It only relates well to a theory.

Maybe the Sun is orbiting in unison with a binary star that is further away. Possibly a brown dwarf... that would explain Venus's orbital direction. It would also offset your theoretical gravitational pull.

2) Pro says; "Seasons are another obvious example of the Earth's movement."

Temperature change can be for a number of reasons. The earths core can easily be the cause of the seasons. The hypothetical brown dwarf binary star that i proposed in the last answer can explain axial tilt. Example; The theoretical gravitational pull that you propose can be pulling the earth towards both stars The Sun & The Bun (Brown Sun).

3) Pro says; "The number of satellites currently in Earth orbit has recorded the Earth moving innumerable times."

Aliens blew up the white house. Will Smith saved the world. Patrick Stewart fly's spacecraft at warp speed. If you can show me video that is as convincing as the ones I have to support my claims, I will happily dispute this point.

4) Pro says; "The Coriolis effect is basically an effect caused by Earth's movement"

I am already very aware of the Coriolis Effect. The experiment was conducted by shooting a canon ball in different directions (I always wondered how much thought went in to that). The only thing Coriolis effect proves; is that Coriolis Force moves things, it is relative to observable earth conditions and the result changes under water.

5) This is one of your best contentions. To further embrace your point, I would like focus on the light years aspect. There is about 1 star for every 280 cubic light years. Most of the stars we see in our night sky are over 500 light years away. That means the light takes 500 years to reach us.
Maybe the stars aren't there anymore? http://www.edurite.com...
We also have obstructions in our skies. For example maybe our slow rotating 1-sided Moon paired with our atmosphere and dark matter act as a smoke and mirror magic trick would. Who's to say?

6) I like the theory of gravity. It is verrry entertaining.
It applies so well to things on THIS PLANET. I must Inform you that the old Sir Newton may have some worthy opposition.
I would like to quote an article I found at; http://pureinsight.org...

Quote ;"Professor Eric Verlinde, age 48, a respected string theorist and a professor of physics at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Amsterdam, proposed a new theory of gravity as reported by the New York Times on July 12, 2010. He argued in a recent paper, entitled "On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton" that gravity is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, his contention is that gravity is an illusion that has caused continued turmoil among physicists, or at least among those who profess to understand it."

He later went on to say; "For me, gravity doesn't exist," said Dr. Verlinde. It's not that he won't fall to the ground, but Dr. Verlinde, along with some other physicists, thinks that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic from which gravity "emerges," the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of individual investors or how elasticity emerges from the mechanics of atoms."

Gravity is widely disputed, Dr. Verlinde is not the only Physicist with a conflicting view. If the physicists of today succeed in changing the accepted norm, each of the contentions you have made will be re-written.

7) The Moon was a Rogue planet says Pro. That is yet another theory. Since we are on the subject of theories. The most widely *accepted theory (which means nothing) states that the Earth was forming from many rocks and chunks of icy material and came into contact with space debris that chipped off an actual piece of Earth, which later became the Moon. http://www.scholastic.com...
Although this has nothing to do with the Earth being in constant motion, I believe it should stand as proof AGAINST the reliability of theories.
The Moon in actuality (not theory) Orbits the Earth, It has no visible rotation. It coincidentally rotates every 29.5 days, which by some grace of the flying spaghetti monster (or god if you prefer that moniker) never reveals its other side to us. http://starryskies.com...
I believe Pros, Moon contention strengthens the Con perspective and this point should go to me.

If we use a geocentric view of the world and dispose of the idea that what we see in the sky at night is stars and instead think of it as the result of our sun shining on other planets and ascribe an entirely new set of rules and mathematics to describe it, who can say its wrong?

People will say that its wrong, because for the last 300 years everything has been built off of a few core concepts. I hate to see things treated as concrete. In the words of Robert Anton Wilson; "Belief is the death of creativity".

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

Im a little saddened that this debate is going to boil down to the con trying to dismiss universal facts as wild theories and offer no solid evidence for his own arguments... That being said I will still defend my arguments

1) Con's explanation for why the sun orbits around the Earth = There is an invisible brown dwarf somewhere in the solar system that we just somehow missed but the Con knows exists, and this tiny fragment of a star manages to have a larger gravitational force than the sun that can make it move, but not the Earth.

The Sun is the center of our solar system due to its immense mass (99.8% of all mass in the solar system is the sun) so for anything to cause the Sun to orbit around it would have to be so massive it would be impossible to miss.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...
http://www.globio.org...
http://science.nationalgeographic.com...
http://www.english-online.at...

The Con thinks that somehow there is another star within our solar system that causes the sun to revolve around the Earth yet at the same time leaves the Earth perfectly still and has offered no evidence that this insane idea of his is true. On another note if something is powerful enough to cause the Sun to move, then how come it cant cause the Earth to move as well? Gravity isnt selective Con...

2) Con's explanation for why the Earth has seasons = The earths core can easily be the cause of the seasons.
I offer the Con to provide any actual evidence, sorces, or logic that could explain how The Earth's core could cause the crust to experience seasons. Allow me to show evidence that Earth's tilt and orientation to the sun is the cause for seasons.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu...
http://www.astronomy.org...

It is an accepted fact that the Earth is tilted, the Con even admits this. However he keeps hiding behind his imaginary invisible sun theory rather than provide actual proof

3) Con's explanation for why satellites show the Earth is moving = mass conspiracy
The Con turns to Hollywood to try to claim that since movie producers use satellite images for special effects that this somehow dismisses satellites as reliable evidence. Here are sources showing how satellites have observed Earth's rotation.

http://www.youtube.com...



The videos posted to the top left show how every day cameras from the International space station along with many other satellites observe Earth's movement each and every hour. I invite the Con to use videos of satellite scenes from movies, Ill provide the filming locations where the movies were shot to show that they are faked...

And by the way Con, would you care to explain why Space agencies around the world would all intentionally create footage showing the Earth is moving if it actually isnt? I doubt even you could think of something that creative

4) The Con's explanation for why the Coriolis effects happens: So what
My argument still stands since the concept behind the experiment still acts as evidence that the Earth is in motion

5) The Con's explanation for why the stars are too far away to revolve around the Earth: Magic....
Its quite possible that those stars arent there anymore, and that there are planetary obstructions. However this does not dismiss the case entirely because each and every night when we look up we can spot constellations that are in the exact same position and shape that they were the night before, and for that to happen those distant stars would have to travel at impossibly high speeds to maintain such patterns.

The Con though flat out ignores this -______-

6) The Con's explanation for why the Sun hasnt sucked the Earth to its death through gravity: Gravity is a massive lie
The Con quotes one physicist as his entire argument for why gravitational pull by the sun hasnt pulled the Earth to its death, however the Con does admit in his own source that there is an attraction and that it does exist here on Earth.
"It's not that he won't fall to the ground" <- from the source
"It applies so well to things on THIS PLANET" <- from the Con

But we have had men step on the moon, and I mean literally step on the moon since the gravitational pull of the moon keeps them from drifitng into space. We have rovers on Mars that stay on Mars because of Mars's gravitational pull. There is gravity on every planet that has a moon because if there wasnt gravity on those planets then they wouldnt have moons. And lastly the Sun has gravity since I have shown that all planets orbit the Sun. If the Sun didnt have gravity every last thing in the Solar system would have drifted off into the depths of space long ago. But that hasnt happened since the Sun's gravity, or whatever the Con wants to call it, still has an effect on planets in the solar system. So my argument still stands that if the Earth were standing still then gravitational forces would still have pulled the Earth to its fiery death.

It could be argued that we dont know for sure the mechanics behind gravity, but the Con concedes that there are forces and interactions at play and those forces still apply to the planets and the stars and he knows it.

7) Con's explanation for why the moon's collision with the Earth did not cause it to move: Im a liar
Con believes the Moon was once a part of the Earth and just suddenly "broke off" by using wordplay to twist an article to his favor. Here are my sources of evidence supporting a long ago impact between the Earth and the Moon
http://articles.cnn.com...
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...
http://arxiv.org...
http://www.esa.int...
http://www.nhm.ac.uk...
^ that one explains it the fastest for why the impact theory is more accepted than the fission theory

"which by some grace of the flying spaghetti monster (or god if you prefer that moniker) never reveals its other side to us." - Insulting the views of me and the voters isnt going to help you Con...

"If we use a geocentric view of the world and dispose of the idea that what we see in the sky at night is stars and instead think of it as the result of our sun shining on other planets and ascribe an entirely new set of rules and mathematics to describe it, who can say its wrong?"

Anyone can say its wrong since your flat out ignoring the biggest piece of evidence that shows that theory is impossible, the stars in the sky at night...

The Con's entire strategy in this debate is that all of the facts I presented are just theories, and then he tries to match theories with stupider theories to try to fuse fact and fiction to try to win. If thats what its going to come down to then im very disappointed with how seriously the Con is taking this debate, but if that is the case then I ask voters to judge the arguments based on whose theories are more logical, convincing, and actually based on facts....

GORGIAS

Con

Such Confidence Pro. You would think he's actually been on ISS, or carried out an actual experiment to test the theories he believes.

1) Pro says an "invisible brown dwarf" is the base of my contention. I guess it would be news to Pro if I told him Brown Dwarfs - Actually Are Invisible, or nearly. Shall I name this prior brown dwarf theory that Pro thought to be baseless? I am talking about TYCHE, It is believed to be near Pluto.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com...

"Astrophysicists John Matese and Daniel Whitmire from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette think data from NASA's infrared space telescope WISE will confirm Tyche's existence and location within two years."

If Pro understands Gauss's Law for magnetism http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_law_for_magnetism
Pro can conclude that it is very much so possible for one magnet to be suspended between two. We currently measure the distance of stars through a technique called triangulation. This technique stands true on earth, but does not take the unknown into consideration. An assumption is formed that tells us the color spectrum explains the brightness, which then assumes that the amount of light that "should" come from the star is a certain amount. Knowing this information should tell you; if one assumption is wrong it will terribly alter the results of the entire test.
http://science.howstuffworks.com...


2) What we have here is a case of one theory coming first being accepted and the other theories never being created. Who wants do dedicate a life to creating a model that does not fit into the widely accepted model. We believe that no explanation beyond an axial tilt is necessary, or at least Pro does. Pro has asked that I use evidence, logic and sources. I concur, apparently in the center of our planet Earth there resides a spinning solid iron ball, which researchers call the "inner core" The ball is about the same temperature as the surface of the sun at approximately 5778 K and it is like a heart within a living body. Consider the earth as the body. A body similar to that of an Endotherm. Endotherms regulate their own body heat. In this analogy we can relate the adipose tissue which is used for heat regulation, to the earths mantle. Heat loss can be increased by dilation of the arterioles to increase blood supply to the skin, this can explain earthquakes. The process of convection (in Physics- the transfer of heat by the circulation or movement of the heated parts of a liquid or gas) in Endotherms can explain the Earth's volcanic eruptions. Increased activity of sweat glands in Endotherms increase heat loss by evaporation, The earth has a similar process. These are all signs of the Earth's self Regulation of body temperature.
http://pubs.usgs.gov...

3) Thank you Pro for applauding my creativity. Consider that you could get billions of dollars in funding to make some low quality videos? That leaves room for motive, its also not very creative.

Pro means to tell me that THIS video is a death to all doubt. http://www.youtube.com...;
I can't tell if the planets moving or not, honestly. If you say that you are sure it's moving, then I will agree to disagree. The earth is not round, so that might be computer generated.

Here is a link to some one who's been off the planet and what he thinks about the video you posted;

The english translation says; The Earth is standing still, do you have jumper cables.

Given this eye-witness statement, Con undoubtedly wins this point.

4) Pro's response was; So what.

So I repeat my contention... Coriolis effect is an effect of Coriolis Force. Therefore Pro is wrong.
I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but the theory proposes that the earths spinning causes Coriolis Force and the effect is Coriolis effect. If the earth isn't spinning, we would find another reason for Coriolis Force. Its not proof of anything. It's an observation, that a canon ball (whens the last time someone saw an active canon) favors one direction over the other dependent on your position. The same result can happen on a planet that's standing still, the canon ball is going toward the magnetic pole that its closest too. (See Gauss's Law of Magnetism)

5) I didn't ignore this contention Pro. I agreed that you had a good point. I only asked that you consider the possibility that nothing is moving. When you look at a piece of paper with a still image it is "Impossible" for the image to actually move. But, somehow an optical illusion makes your eyes believe the movement is there. Then why is it impossible ? If a piece of paper and a pencil can achieve this feat, why can't the sky? I think that Pro and the likes of many others, would rather prove that the stars are real, than deny them. This is what Pro say's; "He keeps hiding behind his imaginary invisible sun theory rather than provide actual proof" and "he tries to match theories with stupider theories". By mentioning my brown dwarf theory in two seperate contentions, I was only displaying the growth process of theory. It starts out as a way to explain one thing, and next thing you know, it's Gravity and Pro is inviting it to his house to meet his parents. Is my theory any less imagined than the ones that pro quotes so confidently?

6) The Moon is possibly the most debatable subject in history. I feel like I'm debating the Roman Catholic Church. I'm merely pointing out some obvious holes in some widely accepted theories. I believe NOTHING. If the Sun didn't have gravity and gravity was only central to the actual body of mass, everything would not float away, we would just develop new theories to explain the "IFS" and "WHYS".

I don't appreciate Pro saying "I admit" something, resorting to word twisting won't win this for you Pro.

I will elaborate on the theory presented by a well known astrophysicist, whom was born within the last 100 years. I chose, as Pro would say "one physicist", whom opposes the contention Pro's arguments Rely on. Gravity. I am sure the voters noticed that at some point in time every Pro argument has mentioned gravity. This gravity Pro mentions is strong enough to pull entire planets, but people are weightless in space, unaffected by its strength. logical abstraction.

Verlinde said; "The presented ideas are consistent with our knowledge of string theory, but if correct they should have important implications for this theory as well. In particular, the description of gravity as being due to the exchange of closed strings can no longer be valid. In fact, it appears that strings have to be emergent too."

In short, Verlindes theory would propose a new line of reasoning beyond gravitational pull to explain planetary movement. http://arxiv.org...

7) I forgot that we were debating about how the moon was made. I never called you a liar, although you did put words in my mouth when you said "Con believes the Moon was once a part of the Earth and just suddenly "broke off" by using wordplay to twist an article to his favor."

I SAID; "The most widely *accepted theory (which means nothing) states that the Earth was forming from many rocks and chunks of icy material and came into contact with space debris that chipped off an actual piece of Earth, which later became the Moon.

Dirty tactic to use for a moot point.

The whole statement i made, once again since this has nothing to do with the Earth being in constant motion, should stand as proof AGAINST the reliability of all theories in general.

Pro Ignored, The only undoubtedly observable fact of the entire debate. The MOON ORBITS THE EARTH, and we don't see it spin, AT ALL. You can explain it away with some 29.5 day theory all you want. The fact still stands, you have never seen the other side of the moon with your own two eyes.

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Pro

- 1 - The Brown Dwarf.
http://en.wikipedia.org...(hypothetical_planet)
So far the dwarf planet is only rumored to exist, and if it does exist it is expected to be only slightly larger than Jupiter. Now it is possible for a planet to be suspended between two stars (if this brown dwarf actually does exist) but there are two problems with this theory, the first is that this planet is so far away that it couldnt possibly have a large gravitational pull on the Earth or even the Sun for that matter. Heck Jupiter right now has no gravitational pull on Earth, so how could another body only slightly larger but terribly farther away do much better? The second is that this does not account for why the Sun allegedly rotates around the Earth while the Earth remains still. If the Sun rotates around this possibly non existent conveniently invisible brown dwarf then how come the Earth doesnt? You claim that its possible that if the Sun and this other star were perfectly still then the planets could be suspended between them, but if the Sun is moving than that contradicts any reason why the Earth would be standing still too since now it is being pulled on by two stars thousands of times larger than Earth is

- 2 - The Con's explanation for why seasons occur
The Con's reasons of why seasons occur is that Earthquakes and Volcanic eruptions cause seasons.... But we have earthquakes and volcanic eruptions year round, it doesnt all happen during one season then just stop during another. These are constantly occurring phenomena that couldnt control seasons on Earth since they happen all the time and arent synchronized with seasonal change which has been constant for millions of years now.

- 3 - The Con's reasoning towards satellites recording the Earth's movement.
The Con only says how the Earth actually isnt round and that you cant see the real time movement of the Earth. The Con though misses the point about how over time (about a day) The Earth is seen moving in a constant pattern around its axis. Rather than offer another wild explanation for why thousands of satellites show the Earth's movement, he just makes fun of my videos...

- 4 - The Coriolis effect
The Coriolis effect is an observation that over long distances moving objects deflect from their intended path because while is (lets say a cannonball) is streaking through the air the Earth rotates underneath it slowly so that when the cannonball does land, its skewed its trajectory to where it should have landed had the Earth been standing still. So how could projectiles shot over long distances from north to south or south to north always skew off course slightly towards the West everytime even when the wind is pushing against it? The Earth's rotation underneath the projectile is the easiest and most logical explanation for why this happens.

- 5 - The movement of the Stars
" I didn't ignore this contention Pro"
Then how come you didnt offer any explanation for why the stars somehow illuminate the sky at night each and every night in the same position as before and claim the only reason this happens is because its an optical illusion..... Ive already argued that the stars cannot travel fast enough to orbit around the Earth and you are sticking your head in the ground and ignoring this, you even claim the stars dont exist yet we've studied them and found out that they are out there...

- 6 - The gravitational forces the Sun and Moon have on the Earth
"I believe NOTHING. If the Sun didn't have gravity and gravity was only central to the actual body of mass, everything would not float away"
Id ask you to provide science or logic or sense to argue why objects would continue orbiting other objects if none of them had any force or attraction to them at all, but since you dont believe in science I wont ask...

"I don't appreciate Pro saying "I admit" something, resorting to word twisting won't win this for you Pro."
You claimed Gravity didnt exist but your own source says only states how the true mechanics are not entirely understood but that there are forces still at play. Your own source says how gravity still exists and you have several times claimed that an invisible brown dwarf somehow pulls the sun around the Earth. If you didnt actually admit there are forces between stars and planets then fine, my bad. But claiming there are no forces at all and then claiming that this invisible star is why the sun orbits the Earth only makes you look kind of stupid....

- 7 - The Moon's impact with the Earth
The Con claimed that the Moon was once a aprt of the Earth and diffused was the msot accepted theory to the origin of the moon, I showed how that was a lie and not true

" The fact still stands, you have never seen the other side of the moon with your own two eyes. "
Thats because the Moon rotates with one side always facing the Earth meaning that as the moon moves around the Earth once every 30 days it also revolves around its axis once every 30 days.

This debate is whether or not the Earth is moving or standing still, the Con's strategy is to try to offer other theories to explain why the Earth doesnt move yet we see effects of why it should, let me recap all the arguments

Why does the Earth have days?
Pro - The Earth spins on its axis causing parts of the Earth to enter constant periods of days and night
Con - A distant invisible star flings the Sun around the Earth while somehow not having any force on the Earth

which sounds more probable and is backed by evidence?


Why does the Earth have seasons?
Pro - The Earth's tilt on its axis as it orbits the sun causes different hemispheres to be exposed to the Earth at different times of the year
Con - Volcanic eruptions and Earthquakes control seasons even though they happen all the time and seasons change at a regular interval

which sounds more probable and is backed by evidence?


Why do satellites show the Earth is moving?
Pro - Satellites have very varying orbits around the Earth and they all show the Earth rotating about its axle in the same direction every time
Con - Satellites cannot be trusted

which sounds more probable and is backed by evidence?


Why does the Coriolis effect occur?
Pro - Objects that travel over the Earth for long distances will be in the air while the Earth rotates beneath it, causing its final impact point to skew to the west from its projected point of impact every time which is due to Earth's movement
Con - The Coriolis effect means nothing and should be ignored

which sounds more probable and is backed by evidence?


Why do the stars rotate across the sky at night?
Pro - The Earth rotates causing these stars to be seen at night since its physically impossible for those stars to travel around the Earth since nothing could travel that fast
Con - The Stars are an optical illusion / magic and might not even exist

which sounds more probable and is backed by evidence?


Why doesnt the Earth get sucked into the Sun from gravity if the Earth is standing still?
Pro - The Earth's inertia and movement around the Sun accounts for why it has not meet its fiery death.
Con - Gravity might not exist and if it does a distant very small star somehow has the same gravitational pull on the Earth as the much closer and much larger sun does, even though I already have claimed that this distant star pulls on the Sun and conveniently does not effect the Earth

which sounds more probable and is backed by evidence?


Could the Moon's collision with the Earth have caused the Earth to move?
Pro - Yes, the Moon impacted the Earth long ago and it was a glancing blow which gave the Earth movement since there is nothing to cause the Earth to not move after being hit by a planet.
Con - No, the Moon was once part of the Earth and the two just happened to diffuse over time according to an article I found online that claims this is what happened even though the impact theory is backed by evidence and is accepted by scientists whose work I dont even believe in

which sounds more probable and is backed by evidence?
GORGIAS

Con

GORGIAS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by GORGIAS 2 years ago
GORGIAS
lol i didnt decide on that... Good debate sorry I didn't post in the last round, I wrote something, but then when I pressed post it disappeared. But no qualms...
Posted by DevonNetzley 2 years ago
DevonNetzley
I'm still trying to figure out why the voting period is 11 days.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
imabenchGORGIASTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious. Both exhibited terrible conduct, but Con's forfeit turned this stalemate to Pro. In terms of arguments, Pro wins. Con resorted to using hypothetical scenarios to explain a certain phenomenon, ignored the scientific definition of a theory, and refused to offer convincing proof of his claims. Fallacies were abundant, whether comparing the earth to the body (perhaps solely based on the earth's ability to self-regulate its temperature) among others.
Vote Placed by DevonNetzley 2 years ago
DevonNetzley
imabenchGORGIASTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: My reasons lie within my vote.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 2 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
imabenchGORGIASTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF = conduct to pro. CON also responds poorly to pro's contentions, while PRO responds fairly well.