The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The Earth orbits the Sun

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 10/21/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 763 times Debate No: 63674
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




Early scientists once held the geocentric position that the Sun orbited the earth. Later, Darwin introduced the heliocentric model, Earth rotating the sun. This model was excepted and the other discarded and thought prehistoric and pretty much as stupid as the Earth being flat. My question: What PROOF do you have to confirm the heliocentric model? Because I have proof that completely debunks it. And please mention the pendulum.


I'm excepting this challenge and hoping that this is a fake debate simply to spark controversy and not because you actually believe it, however I will debate just as hard all the same. I will not go into specifics as this is simply the opening argument. Evidence supporting the heliocentric model is overwhelming, ranging from the fundamental workings of gravity, trigonometry, the mechanics of light and matter, and nuclear fusion. All of these branches of physics and mathematics have been proven correct time and time again. All of these models support the heliocentric model.
Debate Round No. 1


Ok... No evidence given.... I will give one point of evidence.
In the time laps photos of Polaris, It is apparent that the stars farthest away from Polaris have a longer stream of light behind than those closer to Polaris, as if the outer stars are moving faster than the inner. If it was the Earth that was spinning and not the stars orbiting the Earth. all the stars would have the same length streams of light behind them in the time laps photos as it is, as the heliocentric model states, the Earth that is spinning while the stars remain stationary. Time laps photos do not show this, they instead seem to demand the stars moving rather than the Earth. Explanation please?


This is not at all what these photos suggest. looking at the photos we do see stars farther from Polaris do have longer tails in the time lapse photos. However, this does not mean the stars are moving. The best way I can describe what I believe you're saying and what is actually happening is through a thought experiment. Suppose you where laying on the floor and looking up at a fan on the ceiling. if you turned on the fan you would see the ends of the fan (stars farthest from Polaris) moving much faster. However you would also see this exact same effect if the fan was not moving and instead the floor was spinning in a circle. Both of these achieve the exact same effect. Now it is my turn to provide evidence. Possibly the biggest example of evidence supporting the heliocentric model is the force of gravity along with the the known laws of trigonometry as well has our understandings of circles. First of all trigonometry. We know, by using trigonometry along with the mathematics of circles, that the sun has a volume of 1.41x10^18 cubic Km. This is 1,300,000 times larger then the earth. We also know that mass causes gravity. Using this logic we can conclude that the sun has a gravitational force many times larger then that of the earth. This huge difference in gravity means that the earth must orbit the sun.
Debate Round No. 2


In you're statement, "However, you would also see this exact same effect if the fan was not moving and instead the floor was spinning in a circle" you failed to cite who conducted this experiment, Or did anybody? I have spun in a circle before and looked straight up. I believe everything appeared to move the same speed. please validate your response to my argument.
In your argument, you described how the Sun has much more gravitational pull than the Earth and that logic demands the Earth to orbit the Sun. Although you failed to explain your logic. So I have to assume that your logic is that if the Sun is orbiting the Earth, the Earth would not have enough gravitational pull to keep the Sun close as it is and that the Sun would orbit farther and farther away from the Earth. This is not so. The space in which the planets orbit is SO dense that the Sun does not require gravity to stay in orbit because the density of space keeps it in place. It's like if you stirred a big pot of soup. The contents of the soup do not require a gravitational pull from the center of the pot, the density of the liquid keeps it all in place as it all "orbits" the center of the pot.


I would like to point out that the experiment was a though experiment. Meaning it is one that is done in your head (unless you have a floor which can spin fast enough to achieve the effect described). This cannot be done by standing there and spinning as you cannot spin fast enough while at the same time keeping your head from moving. I would also like to point out that this is just a small scale example of the Polaris effect you described. The earth is the floor and the fan is the stars. As the earth rotates it appears as though the stars are moving when in reality we are moving and the stars remain stationary.

first of all, if you didn't know already, gravity is a force caused by by the bending of space by mass. The larger the mass the larger the gravitation force of the object. g=GM/r^2, where g equals the gravitational effect on you, G equals Einsteins gravitational constant, M is the mass of the planet are standing on and r is the radius of the planet (this is only for standing on a planet, not the gravitational force between planets). Or in other words, the bigger the object the more objects want to move closer to it. This is similar to a trampoline. If there is a trampoline with small balls spread evenly across the surface of the trampoline and two people stand on it, one very fat and one very skinny (, if you would like to see what I'm trying to explain). There will be more balls at the feet of the fat person as that person is creating a bigger bending effect on the trampoline thus causing more balls to role towards him.

It is obvious that the sun has a much larger mass due to its massive size. So in response to your statement, "the Earth would not have enough gravitational pull to keep the Sun as close as it is", that is true. However the sun would not orbit at a much farther distance. The sun wouldn't even orbit, earths gravity simply isn't enough to keep the sun in orbit. Secondly I would like to ask how you propose the superdense space works and provide some sort of evidence to show how it effects planets. And if this is true and it keeps the earth in the same place why does it not do this to all other planets and stars in the universe?

The universe is not like a giant bowl of soup. the objects in the bowl of soup simply do not have the ratio of size required to cause any sort of noticeable gravitation force. Plus the object at the centre of the soup pot does not move because you are spinning everything around it. its not being held in place by the soup, its simply not being pushed by the soup. its like the fulcrum in a teeter totter. it remains stationary as the teeter totter rotates around it.

I would also like to point out that I'm not sure if you realize the scale of the sun to the earth. If the earth was the size of a golfball (1.68 inches in diameter) the sun would be 180 inches in diameter. Now if the earth where to achieve the density of an object 109 times bigger then itself in diameter, we would not be able to survive. Why? because the gravitation force of the earth on us would be so great that we would be squashed on the surface. as a said earlier g=GM/r^2. if the mass goes up and the radius and G stay the same then the gravitation effect dramatically increases and goes past the threshold that the human body can withstand.
Debate Round No. 3


In answering your first question to me; "How does the density of space effect the planets" etc. I will also explain to you how your trampoline analogy does not work in comparing to outer space.
The density of outer space is more properly compared to two trampolines, one stacked upside down on top of the other. In your analogy, you had one part density of space (surface of trampoline) and one part density of the Earth's troposphere (air above and around the trampoline) which is MUCH less dense. In my analogy I have 100% density of space. The fat boy and skinny boy both make their own bend in both top and bottom surfaces of the trampoline as do the balls all according to their own size and nothing moves on the trampoline as the surface of the top one sandwiches all masses to the bottom one. The double rip in space likewise counters the effects of gravity. And yes, I'm well aware of the gravity of the Sun compared to that of the Earth.
Answer to the second part of this question: The Earth is stationary abiding within it's own rip in space and has not been acted upon by an outside force to cause it to move. The other planets, Sun, and stars, have been acted upon by an outside force, and therefore move within their own rip in space.
About the parallax of stars around Polaris: You have not provided any good proof that the stars would still look this way if it was the Earth that was spinning. We know for a fact that this is how they would look if it were the stars that were moving to a stationary Earth.
I now have a question for you... According to the Heliocentric model, the Earth orbits the Sun, and meanwhile the Moon orbits the Earth. If the Moon was orbiting a moving Earth it would have to accelerate when orbiting in the same direction that the Earth orbits the Sun, and then decelerate as it begins orbiting back around opposite the direction that the Earth orbits the Sun. What outside force causes the Moon to constantly accelerate and decelerate?


Yes, I know that my trampoline model is not an accurate description of space. However, the purpose of the analogy was to give a simple depiction of how gravity works in relation to objects and their masses, i.e. the larger the mass the larger the gravity. It had nothing to do with the density of space. Your proposed theory that space somehow pins objects in space has absolutely no factual basis. Please provide one. If this where true then the space would apply an equal stopping force to every planet, thus slowing them down. So if the planets orbit in the way they do then there must be a constant force pushing them along. What is this force? So far your entire theory basically ignores gravity and substitutes it for this superdense space you have described. I find this hard to believe especially since you have provided no evidence for this. If we are ignoring gravity in order to allow for your superdense space, please explain how objects fall, how we stick to the earth and why the planets orbit instead of simply flying off into space.

Ok so far in the debate we have agreed on several things that blow major holes in your theory. You said yourself "and yes, i'm well aware of the gravity of the Sun compared to that of the Earth". So if our mathematics for finding the mass and gravity of the Sun are correct, then that requires that our mathematics for finding the distance and size of the Sun must also be correct. Now if we know that our math works, then it should work for all the other planets in our solar system. Now if this were true this would put the Sun somewhere between Mars and Jupiter. However, according to the geocentric model the Sun is between Venus and Mars. We have two different distances, which according to you are both correct?? Please clarify.

Now, about the moon. Technically speaking you are neither right nor wrong. As the moon orbits the earth it moves at a constant velocity. However, from the perspective of the Sun it appears to accelerate and decelerate as it orbits. This is all a matter of perspective. If the moon where orbiting the sun, then yes it would need to accelerate and decelerate as it moves around the earth. However, the moon is orbiting the earth and not the sun. So, as I said before you are neither right nor wrong it is simply a matter of perspective.

Finally I would like to point out one of the largest flaws in your theory. In your opening statement you said, "Later, Darwin introduced the heliocentric model". First of all Darwin proposed the theory of evolution and natural selection, not the heliocentric model. Secondly the heliocentric model was first proposed by Aristarchus of Samos. He was a greek astronomer and mathematician who lived between 310 B.C and 230 B.C. Even though the theory wasn't properly published and excepted until 1543 when it was proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus. This doesn't line up at all with what you said. Please explain.

sorry it took so long i had my whole argument written out and then it got erased when i tried to up load it. So i had to rewrite the whole thing.
Debate Round No. 4


First of all about Darwin and the Heliocentric model, I apologize, I did mean Copernicus.

You asked what constant force keeps the planets moving assuming that the aether (space) itself is not moving. this is the Geocentric theory that all stars, planets and the aether itself have been set in motion around the Earth. Look up Dr. Robert Sungenis, a researcher of Geocentric cosmology.
According to the Geocentric model, Mars, and Venus orbit around the Sun as the Sun orbits the Earth. This would put Mars and Venus on either side of the sun only part of the time and they would draw closer and then farther from the Earth as they orbit the Sun. Jupiter's orbit around the Earth causes it to draw close on one side and far on the other.
Long video, watch it all if you want, but there is and example of the model I just said in the beginning, 2:40 into the video.
The measurements of these planets were made assuming that they all stayed the same distance from each other at all times. Although I do not believe that scientists really have the ability to calculate the distance of the stars as they are just too far away.
Objects fall and are Earth bound because the gravity of Earth bares full relevance within its less dense atmosphere. A space ship only uses its power jets until it leaves the Earth's atmosphere. And once again, the planets do not fly off into space because the density of space keeps them were they are. Like stirring a pot of soup. The contents of the soup do not stay in place because of gravity, but because of the density of the water.
You are completely incorrect about the Moon, it has nothing to do with perspective. It either is or it isn't moving. Let's say there were two men on a track around a football field. One man's name is Earth, the other man's name is Moon. Earth begins running at a constant speed around the field. As he runs, Moon begins to run circles around him as they both run around the field together. This is a model of how the Earth and Moon orbit the sun according to the Heliocentric model. But in order for Moon to run circles around Earth, he has to accelerate on Earth's right, pass him, cross in front to Earth's left, decelerate, and cross behind Earth towards his right, and then repeat. If the Moon is doing this, It is breaking the Law of physics that clearly states: An object at rest or in motion will remain as such unless acted on by another force.

So far I have validated both My Polaris argument and my Moon argument that both refute the Heliocentric model.
Now I will present one more argument:
According to the Heliocentric model, the Earth orbits a stationary Sun with a 300 million km wide orbit... At the same time Polaris sits stationary with the Sun directly in point of Earth's 23.4 degree axis. Here is the problem, if Earth makes a 300 million km wide orbit, its axis would of course orbit with it, and would no longer be pointing at Polaris. As Polaris remains stationary with the Sun, Polaris would also be appearing to orbit the Earth just like the Sun.
You can watch this video if you want to see a visual description of what I am talking about. He has an annoying voice so bear through. The visual description of this starts at 1:14 into the video. In the Geocentric model, Earth sits stationary with no tilt, and Polaris sits directly above.
I will also mention a few experiments that proved the Earth was stationary and everything else moving, but were thrown under the rug so to speak because they completely contradict the presently accepted orthodox views of our planetary system and astronomy in general.
1. The Michelson-Gale Experiment
2. "Airey's failure" experiment
3. Sagnac's experiment
4. The Michelson-Morley experiment
You can look these up yourself.
This video explains them all.


Ok, thank you for clearing that up about Darwin. And also thank you for providing an excellent argument. I will enjoy this last round greatly.

So, first things first. The theory proposed by Dr. Robert Sungenis. I did not watch the entire video because, as you said, it is very long. However, from what I did watch it raised some very important questions that need to be answered.

1) Ok, so according to the geocentric model the entire universe, not just the solar system, revolves around the earth. Now if we accept this is true then we cannot accept the fact that the universe is any bigger then the solar system. This does line up with the geocentric model, which says that the stars are basically on a big sort of screen that encompasses the solar system. Now whether or not you agree with this, it is the only option. Why? Well if the universe is as large as the heliocentric model proposes then stars and planets thousands of lightyears away would be moving faster then the speed of light in order to keep up with what we see when we look up at the stars. This is obviously not possible, as Einstein proved. Nothing can travel faster then the speed of light. The theory that the stars are really just a big picture on a massive screen surrounding the solar system does not work. Why? Because we have sent the satellite voyager 1 outside of our solar system, taking photos the whole way. At no point during that trip have we come across any data that would indicate that the solar system is geocentric. We have two theories, the massive universe or the inclosed solar system. Neither of them work with the geocentric model. Therefore I must conclude that the geocentric model is wrong in regards to the rest of the universe. Of coarse you could say that the information provided by the voyager 1 is really just being hidden and replaced with false information to keep the public from panicking, but thats another debate for another time.

2) In my last point I said that the geocentric model is wrong when it comes to the rest of the universe, however this still leaves our solar system. In your last argument you said that the gravity of earth was due to the fact that the atmosphere blocks the superdense space. I'm going to ignore that theory for now and focus on the fact that we experience gravity because of an atmosphere. Going off of this we should not experience gravity when there is no atmosphere as space prevents us from feeling it. However this is not the case. When mankind first landed on the moon we experienced gravity. The moon does have a atmosphere, however it is less then a trillionth of the density of the earths. So because of this we should experience a lot less then the 1/6 of earths gravity then we do when walking on the moon. We should feel almost no gravity on the moon if this where true.

3) You also said, "Although I do not believe that scientists really have the ability to calculate the distance of the stars as they are just too far away.". When calculating the distance between us and other planets in our solar system it is quite simple. Take a photo of the planet from a telescope on one side of the world, and take another from a telescope on the other side of the world. We can then use trigonometry to find the distance. As you said this cannot be used to find the distance to stars as they are simply to far away. So, in order to find the distance we supersize this process. Basically we take a photo from one side of the solar system, wait six months and take another photo of the star from the other side of the solar system. Unfortunately we can only use this for stars closer then 500 lightyears, give or take. The second method is much more complicated ( and basically involves using the relative brightness of the stars to find the distance. This is the currently our most accurate way of finding the distance to stars. However, like you said it is not incredibly accurate but it can be done.

4) Once again, the moon and the earth. Lets pretend we have a tether ball, but its a very special tether ball. The rope never wraps around the pole and the ball never slows down. If you where to take the ball and spin it around the poll. The ball would move at a constant speed never accelerating and never decelerating. Now pretend that we moved the poll to the bed of a moving truck. Repeating the experiment you throw the ball around the poll. The ball moves at a constant velocity and never accelerates and never decelerates. The moon does not change speed. The sum of its total velocity (speed and direction) changes, the earths velocity plus the moons velocity, as the moons velocity is occasionally negative even though its speed is constant. But the actual speed of the moon remains constant. Simply put, the moon moves at a constant speed relative to the earth, not to the sun.

5) Polaris. After much research I have come to a shocking conclusion. I know this will sound strange and at first I did not believe it, but feel free to check it out for yourself ( You are right. The North Star does not remain still. It changes it position slightly as the earths axis wobbles slightly. The reason that the Polaris remains in almost the same place over the north pole is because its so far away, about 430 lightyears. Even the 300 million Km wide orbit of the earth only changes the angle by billionths of a degree. We cannot perceive this small of a change with our own eyes and so it appears to remain in the same spot over the north pole.

6) Finally is a fact that also debunks the geocentric model. The planet Mars. Not the fact that the planet exists, but the fact that we have landed several probes on it. Why does this debunk the geocentric model. Well we where able to land the probes on Mars because we where able to predict where the planet would be by the time our ship got there, we did this using heliocentric equations and calculations. The orbit of the planet Mars is totally different between the geocentric and heliocentric models. simply because of the fact that we have landed on Mars we must conclude that it orbits in the way the heliocentric model describes.

During the coarse of the debate you have made several points that seem to prove the geocentric model. Unfortunately all of these arguments can be disproved by the fact that we have explored our solar system and beyond, albeit not very far outside of our solar system. If the only evidence for either side of the debate was observations made from earth, then it would be very hard to conclude if either side was correct. However, as I said we have explored our solar system. We know what our solar system looks like because we have seen it studied it from more then our limited perspective of earth. Based off of the evidence provided I must conclude that the heliocentric model is correct. I hope I have convinced you as well. Either way thank you for this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by yoshidino 1 year ago
GarretKadeDupre, That was my mistake. I meant Copernicus, not Darwin. And yes I am a Geocentrist.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 1 year ago
"Darwin introduced the heliocentric mode"

Lol thank you for making me laugh

That was just too funny

I can't be bothered to read the rest though, but I will say I'm an actual Geocentrist (I don't know if you are though)
Posted by yoshidino 1 year ago
I was just glad to learn more... Rubikx, are you christian?
Posted by Rubikx 1 year ago
Wow.. all that work and not one vote. Sometimes a wish there were more people who voted
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
Well... It's too bad the debate does not go longer. No, I'm not swayed, as I have found fault in your last argument. I will not honor you with the details lest you honor me with another challenge to continue the debate. Although I will mention your Moon analogy. If a tether ball was bolted to a truck, the friction of the air would stop the rotation and cause it to drag behind the poll. But let's pretend there is no air friction. The ball would still fail to continue its revolutions. It will not keep its velocity due to Newton's first law. An outside force (the moving poll bolted to the truck) acts upon the ball to cause it to decelerate to the speed of the truck, and there is no other counter force to cause it to accelerate faster than the truck to pass the poll again. When debating, you should use analogies that work. Like mine about the two men running around the football field. you were not able to make this analogy invalid.
Posted by Rubikx 2 years ago
ya, thanks for the debate. It was only my second so far. I hope that I have provided sufficient evidence to persuade you that heliocentric model is correct. Good luck on all future debates.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
I am not in this to win, I just want to know the truth regardless of what I've been told, test my arguments, and hear a good argument to support the Heliocentric model (if there is one) and see if I can refute it.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
By the way Mr. Rubikx, thank you for the debate, I am enjoying it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.