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

The Earth orbits the Sun

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,338 times Debate No: 63828
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




Early scientists once held the geocentric position that the Sun orbited the earth. Later, Copernicus 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.


Thank you to my opponent for a great debate topic, not so much for the points of winning the debate, but for an overall increase in knowledge. Throughout these few rounds we will be discussing, in my understanding, the geocentric model vs. the heliocentric model (Pro arguing that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and Con arguing otherwise). I will request that the BoP be shared within this debate; simply disproving your opponent's points will not be enough to win this debate.

Seeing as nothing was stated about rules, and that my opponent is asking for proof of the heliocentric model, I will jump straight into my arguments this first round.

1) Parallax

This concept of parallax, or the apparent displacement of an object in relation to the background, may be one of the most prevalent pieces of evidence for a heliocentric theory. To summarize, parallax describes how we perceive closer objects moving in relation to objects farther away. I don't want to spend too long explaining this concept (though I will do so a bit), so I will post a link to a website if anyone reading this has any further interest in the topic [1].

Basically, when looking at a star in the sky, the concept of parallax would suggest that when the Earth is on one side of the Sun (assuming heliocentrism), a star in the distance would appear to move across the background as Earth continues its course around the Sun. In 1838, Friedrich Bessel performed an experiment and discovered that, when looking at a star in the distance (61 Cygni), there was in fact a shift in it's apparent position over the course of 6 months [2]. This alone should be proof of a heliocentric model. In a geocentric model, there would be no change, and the effects of parallax would not be witnessed. All stars would remain in the same position compared to the background regardless of the season and time of year.

2) Retrograde motion

Another point on which to base my belief on a heliocentric model. This motion is seen in a similar fashion to the previous point. In this case, however, one must observe other planets in the solar system and the relative paths that are taken in the sky. Mars for example, would be seen traveling from right to left (over time) across the sky, but at some point will reverse direction, going left to right for a bit before returning to the previous motion. [3]

With a heliocentric belief, all that needs to be in place is our current understanding of planets and their elliptic paths taken around the sun. This retrograde motion is then seen through the natural progression of the planets [4]. In a geocentric system, however, this retrograde motion would only be possible if the other planets (and Sun) revolved around epicycles; in other words, each planet would have a smaller orbit, and the center of that orbit would revolve around the earth [5]. While an argument could be made for this, there are many discrepancies when used to predict the position of certain planets.

3) Gravity

When looking at the relative sizes of the Sun and the Earth, the Sun is massive. Weighing over 300,000 times the mass of Earth and being able to hold about 1,300,000 Earths within it, it is clear that the Sun takes up more mass and space in our solar system [6]. This being known, it makes sense that the earth would be revolving around the Sun and the other focus point of the elliptical orbit. In comparison, this would be similar to a 70 kg man (the standard mass of an adult [7]) in relation to a standard raindrop [8]. Common sense would say that the raindrop would revolve around the person, not the person revolving around the raindrop.

I'll begin with these three arguments, and will proceed to introduce more should I need to.

Looking forward to my opponent's statements.


[1] - (yes, it's Wiki, but it's solely for a description of parallax)
[2] -
[3] -
[4] -
[5] -
[6] -
[7] -
[8] -
Debate Round No. 1


Okay, so Pro begins with the argument of Parallax. He states that parallax would only be possible under a heliocentric model. This is incorrect. While, indeed, parallax would not be witnessed if the stars were orbiting the earth, It would be witnessed if the stars' orbits were around the Sun. This is best understood visually, so here is a video that gives a diagram of this: The video is long, so you do not have to watch the whole thing. The diagram of this appears 20:10 into the video.

Retrograde motion: or, Mars.
It is very simple to get the pattern we see mars take in the sky with the geocentric model. Once again, put Mar's orbit around the Sun as the Sun orbits the Earth and the same thing will be seen. Once again, best understood visually. The diagram of this appears 27:24 into the video

Gravity: "In reality, Newton did not teach that the smaller must go around the larger; rather, he taught that all celestial bodies will revolve around the center of mass. As such, even Newton agreed in his Principia that the earth could occupy the center of mass if all the other bodies in the universe were strategically placed around it so that all their gravitational masses balanced out at the center. In short, this is the scientific basis for geocentrism " the earth is the center of mass for the universe, and thus the universe will revolve around the earth." Dr. Robert Sungenis

You may think you see a contradiction where in one place I say the stars and planets (except Earth) orbit the Sun, and in another place I say the Universe revolves around the Earth. Let me clarify, the Universe (including the Sun) revolve around a stationary Earth as they all take an orbit around the sun, which is orbiting the Earth. The Earth is the center of mass as the universe revolves around it. This Also is depicted in Dr. Sungenis' diagrams of the geocentric model shown in the link above.

My turn now,
1. 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?

2. 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? Newton's first law states, an object at rest or in motion will continue as such unless acted on by another force. On top of this, Kepler's second and third laws of orbital motion state: A planet"s orbital speed changes, depending on how far it is from the Sun. The closer a planet is to the Sun, the stronger the Sun"s gravitational pull on it, and the faster the planet moves. The farther it is from the Sun, the weaker the Sun"s gravitational pull, and the slower it moves in its orbit. And, a planet farther from the Sun not only has a longer path than a closer planet, but it also travels slower, since the Sun"s gravitational pull on it is weaker. Therefore, the larger a planet"s orbit, the longer the planet takes to complete it.
This contradicts the way heliocentrism depicts the orbit of the Moon around a moving Earth even without Newton's first law, because according to Kepler's laws, the Moon should speed its orbit when closest to the Sun, and slow when it's farthest. But the heliocentric model demands that the Moon decelerates when closest to the Sun, and accelerates when farthest from the Sun. I know that Kepler's laws were directed to that which orbits the Sun, but the same concept applies because, according to the heliocentric model, the Moon would feel the Sun's gravitational pull just like the Earth.
Back to Newton's first Law. 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.

3. 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.


Some great arguments posted by my opponent, and it truly is fascinating to see an opposing side to a topic that may be taken for granted. I will attempt to refute these points (and refutations of my points).

R1) Parallax

My opponent poses a strong argument that parallax could be seen with a geocentric model, and according the video, he shows that it is possible. However, this comes with some grand assumptions. First, for this to work, one must assume that the stars in the rest of the universe orbit the sun. This would be quite difficult to prove true, mostly because of the vast distance separating the stars and the Sun, or the supposed center of orbit. I am not stating that the description of parallax concerning a geocentric model is wrong in theory, but with the current knowledge of the stars it doesn't make sense.

Take the equation for gravitational pull for example [1]. By plugging in numbers of the Sun and the closest star, Proxima Centauri [2] [3], one can find that the gravitational pull is equivalent to about 2.47 x 10^16 Newtons of force. This seems like a lot, yet when compared to the force exerted on the Earth (about 3.5 x 10^22 Newtons) [4], one sees that the force exerted on the closest star is over one million times smaller than that exerted on the Earth. If this is the case for the closest star, it would be difficult to believe for stars that are much farther away from the Sun.

R2) Retrograde Motion

Again, this could work in theory, as the video showed. However, this merely states that it could theoretically be described through a geocentric model. It does nothing to prove Geocentrism, nor disprove Heliocentrism. Likewise, this would require that everything else in the universe revolves around the Sun, or at least the rest of the Solar System. How are we positive these orbits or revolutions concerning the rest of the Universe are correct?

R3) Gravity

I understand now that just because an object is smaller it must revolve around the larger, due the the force being exerted in both directions, according to Newton's Third Law. Once again, however, I would like to see a proof that the Earth is the center of the Universe, regardless of the rest of the universe orbiting the Sun. Not saying that this is impossible or anything along those lines, I would just like to see proof of this before believing it. Heliocentrism, at least for the concept of our Solar System and even just the Earth and Sun alone, does not require a set center of the Universe.

R4) Time Lapse Photos

While I am not sure which photos you are referring to, I understand the argument being stated. I would like to point out that Heliocentrism does not state that everything else in the Universe is stationary; it is entirely possible that the stars are also moving. Furthermore, I am not quite understanding how one can determine which stars are close or further from time lapse photos alone (unless they were denoted previous to the viewing).

R5) Moon's Orbit

My opponent questions what force acts on the Moon to alter its motion, causing it to slow down and speed up in a seemingly controversial pattern. The simple answer to this is that the Earth also acts on the Moon. With an extremely elliptical orbit, it makes sense that the Moon could speed up and slow down as it changed distances from the Earth [5]. Similarly, I appreciate the example of the two men running around the track. It allows one to understand what is truly going on in the Solar System. However, that example is in no way put into perspective. With an orbital circumference around the Sun nearly 390 times longer than the Moon's orbital circumference around the Earth, one would have to drastically change the distances the two men would run [6] [7]. While I do not have exact numbers (I could calculate them if needed), the man running circles around the other would have to vary his speed in such a way that could hardly be seen; in other words, the Sun wouldn't play as large of a role in the Moon's orbit.

R6) Polaris Position

The link to the YouTube video didn't link correctly, would my opponent be able to repost this link?

If I am understanding correctly (please correct me if I am wrong), this argument is based around the thought that Polaris would not be directly above the Earth six months apart due to the change in position of the Earth. However, Polaris is around 430 light years away from Earth, just over 4 x 10^15 km away, a vast distance separating the two bodies [8]. Furthermore, Polaris itself is not the exact line of the Earth's axis, but instead the point that appears to be in the middle of a circle Polaris revolves around [8]. This, along with the fact that the exact placement of this line of sight of the Earth's axis is ever changing (due to Earth's axis changing) [9], shows that the Polaris argument is not enough to disprove a Heliocentric model, and in fact supports this claim.

I am only going to post two further arguments this round to support my claim, seeing as I am still learning more about the topic.

P1) Other Solar Systems

This argument comes from outside information gathered from other solar systems. When looking at other galaxies and solar systems in our universe, it is hard to disagree or disprove those orbits that we can view. For example, the Solar System KOI-351 has planets that orbit a central star in a very similar fashion to ours (supposedly) [10]. This would, in my opinion, be difficult to refute because we are able to see these orbits take place.

P2) Kepler's Laws

I understand that my opponent used one of these laws to attempt to argue concerning the Moon's orbit, yet I stand by these laws [11]. The math checks out, as well as the fact that these were not only made for planets, but also for other satellites, artificial or natural [12].

Looking forward to my opponent's response.


Debate Round No. 2


For my argument on parallax, pro agrees that it may be possible for the stars to all orbit the sun, but says that it is hard to believe because of our knowledge of the stars. Truth is, is we don't know much at all about the stars. we really only know as much as we can from pictures taken, and it seems not right to draw a scientific conclusion based on something we know so little of. But Let me ask you this.... What kind of a galaxy do we live in?? A spiral galaxy. Tell me, why do you think the entire galaxy appears to be spinning around the center (whether Sun or Earth)? It is possible (we don't know) that some sort of force set the stars in motion, and regardless of gravity, they continue in the same motion until another force acts upon them (Newton's law). They could move without the effect of gravity because they are embedded in the supper dense aether (space), which, according to the geocentric model, moves with the contents thereof. That is only one possibility out of many among the things of the universe that we don't know. We do know though, that something did set all of what is moving in space in motion at one point. But what did that is another debate.

Regarding Mars: I did not bring an argument against the heliocentric model using Mars; pro did against the geocentric model. I simply showed how we can see the same effect on Mars with both models. You ask how we know the revolutions of the rest of the universe are correct. My answer... That is a great question. But remember what I said about how we live in a SPIRAL galaxy. Think of a ceiling fan. The tip of the fan blade are moving so fast compared to the center of the fan, but in proportion to the size of the whole fan they aren't moving that fast. It could also be so with the stars in proportion to the whole universe. How do we know for sure? Well as far as I know, The two models at topic are the only ones that can come close to supporting what we do know based on observation. So all we have to do is disprove one. Process of elimination, and I think we're down to two. So it is my attempt to disprove the heliocentric model because I have good reason to believe the geocentric, which reason shall remain anonymous. This comment regarding Mars goes for you comment on gravity as well.

Time laps photos: I disagree at your statement that the heliocentric model does not require the stars to be stationary. But even so, in saying this, you contradict your previous statements on gravity, retrograde motion and parallax by saying the stars may be moving.

Since you were a little confused about the time laps photos I will elaborate. And the caps on certain words are simply for emphasis and not to be rude... We can see, through time laps photos, that the stars FARTHEST FROM POLARIS appear to be moving faster than the stars that are CLOSEST TO POLARIS by the size stream of light they leave behind in the photos. You should google "time laps photos of Polaris" to see what I am taking about. This would not be if it were the Earth spinning instead of the stars. If it was the Earth that was spinning, the stars would all have the same size stream of light behind them because they, in actuality, would not be moving, but the Earth spinning at a constant speed.

The Moon's orbit: You say that the Moon could accelerate and decelerate as it gets farther and closer to the Earth. But the acceleration and deceleration we are talking about is that which would have to happen daily, while the Moon only gets farther and closer to the Earth in a six month period. So that cannot explain the daily change of speed in the Moon's orbit. You also mention that, in proportion to how fast the Earth is orbiting the Sun (theoretically), that the Moon's change of speed would not be that much... But no matter how much or how little, it still breaks Newton's law. Also, The Earth, according to the heliocentric model, travels around the Sun at about 107 km/h, so we are talking about thousands of kilometers per hour change in the Moon's speed per day. What force could be causing this?? There is none.

Polaris position: You say that Polaris is 430 light years away. How do you know? How do the scientists know this?? No one in the world has the technology to measure the distance of the stars. The parallax is too small to use. Scientists do not really know how far away the stars are. If the Earth was moving along it's supposed 300 million km wide orbit, the time laps photos of Polaris would NOT stay the same year around. We have been told many lies, as scientists work towards their agendas.

Other "solar systems": When viewing other "solar systems" or galaxies, the only thing observable through the Hubble telescope is a brightness in the centers of these galaxies. We do not even know what this brightness is, and can only assume what it might be. When viewing KOI 351 in the Hubble telescope, all that is visible is a large bright center with smaller bright objects spiraling around. But there is no way to know for sure WHAT is causing the enormous brightness in the center of these galaxies.

Kepler's laws: I am unsure about the validity of these laws, so I do not stand with or against them. I simply mentioned them in my argument because I know that the heliocentric model uses and relies on these laws.

I want to give another point of argument: According to the heliocentric model, the Earth spins at 1,000 miles per hour at the equator. But while the Earth spins, there is no good scientific explanation to how the atmosphere and the contents thereof would spin in unison with the Earth. If the Earth was spinning at 1,000 miles per hour, the entire atmosphere would be appearing to be swiftly drafting in the same direction, and we would all be experiencing a MAJOR east wind. But now let's say that somehow the atmosphere did spin in unison with the Earth. If this were so, pilots would have to increase their speed when traveling east as apposed to when traveling west to compensate for the 1,000 mile per hour rotation of the Earth. Moreover, if the Earth were spinning, and we wanted to travel west, we could simply hover over the earth and wait as our destination heads toward us at 1,000 miles per hour. But we do not experience any of this! Instead, a pilot has to travel at the same speed, no matter which direction he goes, to get to his destination.

I will also give the names of four experiments that have been done in attempt to prove that it was the Earth spinning, and not the aether, but instead proved that the Earth was stationary and the aether moving. They were then thrown under the rug so to speak, because they completely contradict the presently accepted orthodox views of our planetary system and astronomy in general. You can google them to learn about them. You can also watch this video which explains them. The explanations to each start at 7:00 into the video.

1. Michelson-Morley experiment
2. Michelson-Gale experiment
3. Airey's failure
4. Sagnac's experiment


Exciting that I'm learning so much throughout this debate. I'll continue to rebut Con's arguments in attempt to satisfy the BoP of proving (to the best of my ability) heliocentrism.

R1) Parallax

My opponent states that we don't know much about the stars, and from my understanding, the only information we can obtain is through pictures. I would like to rebut this and say that our knowledge of stars falls not on the observations drawn from simple pictures, but from much more complex methods, such as spectroscopy, or measuring the amounts of different colors of light to determine chemical make up of stars [1]. Furthermore, he states that something set the entirety of the universe in motion. I agree that this is another debate altogether; glad we don't have to debate that here as well.

However, my opponent brings up the point of the entire universe remaining in motion until a force acts upon it, according to Newton's law. This would stay true with the heliocentric view, by looking at gravity. This could be explained by the supposed black hole at the center of our galaxy [2]. If there was no force, as my opponent is suggesting (I believe; I could be wrong), then all planets and stellar bodies would move in straight lines, not in a spiral. I am not ignoring the aether argument; I will address this later in the debate.

R2) Retrograde Motion

Looking back I see I did in fact bring up Mars, and I do believe I stated that I understand it can be proven in both theories. I would like to redefine my question, or simply re-ask as I am not sure where the proof lies. I understand the fan argument, and again a good description of explaining the concept. However, applying this to stars even a few lightyears away would require them to orbit the earth faster than the speed of light, something that (as of now) is impossible. With a star two light years away (or a radius of say, 2), then the orbit (even generalizing to a circle) would be about 4*pi lightyears. This would require, in the year it takes to orbit the Earth according to Geocentrism, a speed greater than the speed of light.

*I may be wrong in my calculations. Please correct my if I made an error or am mistaken*

R3) Time Lapse Photos

Thank you for the elaboration, as I understand much more now. If possible, I'd like to retract my statement on stars moving, and pose a new rebuttal, or question for that matter. If we are looking at strictly photos, these time-lapse pictures, how do we know which stars are closer or farther away from Earth? This argument requires us to have knowledge about these stars, and if I am not mistaken, you stated that we are not sure about these distances, or that we do not have much knowledge on these stars. Either we are able to know about these stars and my argument holds true, or we do not and this portion of the debate holds no water.

R4) Moon's Orbit

I would like to first point out that the Earth travels 107,000km/hour, not 107. Might have been a mistake, so I will not dwell on this.

I also would like to ask why we would see this acceleration daily. According to the Heliocentric model, the Moon orbits the Earth about every 27 days [2]. This would mean we would see the Moon get closer and farther about every month, not every day, a time period that is feasible. Also, my opponent states that no matter how much or how little the Moon varies in speed, it would break Newton's Laws. I disagree with this, as I already stated that gravity from the Earth would affect the Moon's speed (this gravity being the force allowing for a change in motion) [3]. It would not be a change in thousand's of kilometers per day, but rather a change of a few hundred km/hour per month.

R4) Polaris

I disagree that the parallax is too small. Scientists have been able to measure the parallax of Polaris down to the thousandth of an arcsec, or about 1/3,600,00 or a degree [4] [5]. This measurement of .007 arcsec is enough to give us an estimate on the stars distance.

R5) Other Galaxies

As stated in previous rebuttals, we are able to know what this brightness is, using spectroscopy and determining what mineral or substance would give off that light. Also, the Hubble Telescope is able to give us much clearer pictures than "a brightness in the centers of these galaxies [6]." In any case, viewing this large bright center with smaller objects orbiting would lend way to believing that our solar system could also mimic this pattern, with a bright center (the Sun) and smaller bright objects (planets).

R6) Movement of Earth/Plane Flight

A well posed argument here. The simple answer is that when a plane, or helicopter, takes off, it is not simply moving still. If this were the case, then yes, the Earth would move right under it and allow us to make a 1,000 mile trip in a matter of an hour. This is not the case. Even a helicopter, to give a better description of hovering above the Earth, is traveling the same speed as the Earth at the point of take off [7]. Take the example of sitting in a car. If a person in the back wants a ball from a person in the front, the person sitting shotgun is not able to simply toss the ball up in the air and have the ball travel to the back. Tossing a ball straight in the air will cause it to come back down into your hand, because it was initially traveling the same speed as the car.

R7) Experiments

As for these four experiments, I would like to state that, from what I understood, are proving the existence of the aether (or attempting to). Through these experiments, it is tough to use the speed of light with the limitations of technology. for example, light can travel almost two miles in 1/100,000th of a second, or 1/100th of a millisecond. Regardless, light travels too fast for these experiments to have any effect on the belief of the aether moving, not the Earth.

I do not have many more arguments to present, as I believe me and my opponent have settled on a few topics that are worth debating. Instead, I would like to ask a few questions that I believe could undermine my opponent's arguments. I believe that my refutations also continue to support Heliocentrism.


1) If the Earth is not spinning, or that the Earth is stationary, how are we to account for the daily cycle? Wouldn't this require the Sun to have an orbital time of about 24 hours?

2) How are we sure that the Earth is the center of the Universe? I already somewhat asked this, yet I don't think an answer was given. Much of your argument relies on the belief that the Universe orbits the Earth (or the Sun, which orbits the Earth), yet Heliocentrism does not declare, nor need, a center of the Universe.

3) Would you be able to expand on the aether argument? I understood slightly (a medium that encapsulates the rest of the Universe and allows it to continue motion without gravity, correct), but I am not sure of the proof, nor how it would prove Geocentrism.

Thanks, looking forward to hearing back.


[1] -
[2] -
[3] -
[4] -
[5] -
[6] -
[7] -
Debate Round No. 3


Parallax: First of all, I want to remind you that parallax was never my argument for geocentrism, it was yours for heliocentrism: which I proved it could work for both models. Next, let me ask you a question. What part of what you believe about the distance of the stars do you believe because someone told you or you read it on a website? How many scientists, who were not affiliated with each other, measured the distance of the stars and came up with the same answer? Do you know? I don't. Maybe there are many. Also, even if there were many, all that would mean is that the method they use to determine the distance of the stars comes out the same every time... But that does not prove that there method works to give an accurate distance to the stars. The only way I suppose we could do this is if someone traveled there and told us how far they are. Just something to think about.

Retrograde motion: You are correct about how fast the stars would be moving "if" they were really as far away as you propose. Let's just say they are..... So what? So what if Einstein Said that nothing can move faster than light! He didn't live with the stars! He was human. He may have been wrong. according to the geocentric theory, He was wrong. All this means is that Einstein was not able to make anything move faster than light.

You mentioned that if there was no force than all the planets and stellar bodies would continue in a straight line... I want to humbly tell you that this is incorrect. The conservation of angular momentum makes it clear that if anything is set into a spinning motion in a friction-less environment, it will continue spinning until acted on by another force. Kind of like Newton's law. This being said, if all the planets and stellar bodies were set in motion with the aether in a spiral direction, they would continue as such.

Time laps photos: You ask how we know how far from the Earth these stars are. I never said that we do know. Remember when I capitalized for emphasis, "FARTHEST FROM POLARIS," and "CLOSEST TO POLARIS?" I said Polaris, not Earth. This portion of the debate holds much water. Why do the stars farthest from Polaris appear to be moving faster than those closer to Polaris? To Polaris, not Earth.

Moon's orbit: You are right, my bad. The Moon does only orbit the Earth about every 27 days. But the Moon also has an apogee and perigee. Apogee is when the Moon's orbit is farthest from the Earth, perigee is when the Moon's orbit is closest to the Earth. At times when it is closest to Earth the Moon will move faster, and slower when it reaches apogee (Kepler's Laws). Here is the problem. When the Moon's apogee occurs on the side of the Earth opposite the Sun, according to Kepler's laws, it will slow down and thus not be going fast enough to continue orbiting the Earth. So the Moon would need an extra push from another force besides you proposed gravity to get it back around the "moving" Earth. This, once again, breaks Newton's law.

About the Earth's supposed axis pointing at Polaris: "IF" you are correct about the distance of Polaris, than that would be a proper rebuttal of my Polaris argument. Because there is question about weather or not we really know the distance of the stars, I will no longer use this argument unless I find a way to better support it. But my other arguments still stand.

Other galaxies: I understand that scientists have drawn conclusions of our galaxy based on how they see other galaxies. But this is all assumption and not fact. What if our galaxy is unique from other galaxies? We simply don't know. And the scientists can only assume that the substances that give off that kind of light here on Earth are the same ones that do from the stars. But this is not provable. It could be possible that the stars are made of completely different material than what is know to man. Them giving off the same light proves nothing. Scientists are making big assumptions.

Your analogy to compare to flight is faulty. If someone in the front seat of an enclosed car tosses a ball up, it will indeed land in his lap. But this does not well compare to that of a helicopter hovering in the sky. Try two people on a four wheeler. In an enclosed car the ball will fall in the man's lap sitting in the front because there is no wind resistance. But if he were in a moving four wheeler, the ball would undoubtedly fall back behind due to wind resistance. So if the ball were the helicopter, the pilot WOULD have to compensate for an enormous wind resistance from the east or else he will automatically go west in comparison to the ground.

Did you watch the explanation of the Airey's failure experiment. The speed of light is greatly slowed down when it hits water. The filled the telescope with water in order to slow the lights speed down. He explains that if it was the telescope that was moving and not the stars than you would have to tilt the telescope a little more than 5 degrees to see the star. But when they found that there was no extra tilting necessary, it showed that it was actually the star that was moving. This along with the other experiments proved the rotation of the aether rather than the Earth.

Answers to your questions:
1. Yes, the Sun completely orbits the Earth in 24 hours. This is not scientifically impossible, just hard for the inside of the fan to understand how the outside of the fan can move that fast.
2. How do you know there isn't a center of the universe? We can only know which is correct through the observations we are discussing in this debate.
3. The aether was proved to exist by the Sagnac's experiment, and proved to move (proving the geocentric model correct) by: The Michelson-Gale experiment that showed that it was the aether that was moving across the surface of the earth every 24 hours. And Airey's failure experiment that showed it was the moving star light carried by the rotating aether that was passing across a stationary Earth rather than the Earth rotating beneath the stars. Together, these three experiments both proved the existence of the aether (abolishing Einstein's relativity theory), and proved that the aether was rotating and not the Earth, thus proving geocentrism.

In the comments I have been asked to explain how the seasons are possible with the geocentric model, so I suppose I will.

The Sun orbits the Earth on what is called an elliptical plane (rotating with the aether) which crosses the Earth in a diagonal pattern and an equinox plane which runs horizontal to the Earth. So as the sun orbits the Earth once every 24 hours along the equinox plan it also gradually moves up and down along this elliptical plane, causing the Sun to move from the northern hemisphere (winter) to the southern hemisphere (summer). here is a video by Malcolm Bowden that shows what I am talking about. You may ask why you should believe a more complicated model, thinking that the less complicated model is more logical. But if you really think about it, every thing we know about, let's say biology, is extremely complicated, let alone science in general. Why would it be a big thing for the universe also to work in a very complicated model?


1) Parallax

I understand that this was my argument, and I also agreed in round 2 that it could be shown according to both models. However, I would like to state that bringing up arguments along the lines of how can we trust the data is irrelevant to this debate (If I misinterpreted this argument, please let me know). Yes, I got my information online, from sources that I have mentioned and given links to. I believe this data because parallax, in theory and according to the heliocentric model, follows geometric rules that can be proven on earth [1].

2) Retrograde Motion

Once again, I am believing Einstein and his theories simply because they have been put to the test here on Earth, in experiments that have been tested and repeated many times. Also, while things may move faster than light (for example, the universe could expand faster than light [2]) we would not be able to see this. Likewise, if a distant star was moving faster than the speed of light, it would be moving faster than the light it would be giving off, making it near impossible (if possible at all) to see.

3) Motion of Planets and Stellar Bodies

I disagree that the conservation of angular momentum would prove planets to stay in a circular motion. It may prove that a planet will continue to spin on its axis, but it does nothing to prove the motion in a circle. This is similar to spinning a ball on a string, with the ball being a planet and the string representing gravitational pull. Cutting the string will cause the planet to move in a straight line; likewise, gravity is needed to keep these planets in orbit.

4) Time Lapse Photos

Apologies for the misread. I believe I was reading too quickly, and failed to read it as Polaris, despite the capitalization. Still, I believe your argument is false. To bring back to an example that has been used several times, take the example of a ceiling fan. If Polaris is represented as the middle of the fan, the tips of the fan blades move faster than those closest to it. This is seen in the time lapse photos; the stars farthest away are seen to have a longer tail, meaning they are traveling (relatively) faster than those closest to the center, or Polaris [3]. In other words, those farther from Polaris have to travel a circumference much longer than those closer to Polaris in the same amount of time, meaning they would seem to be moving faster.

5) Moon's Orbit

I agree that the Moon slows down as it moves to the apogee, to the perigee, and back again. But why does this mean that it doesn't have enough speed to orbit back to Earth at the apogee? I understand the concept, but there is no proof that you have shown explaining that it would not have enough speed to make it back to Earth. Planets (in theory), I believe no matter the model, would have elliptic orbits [4], meaning at some point there is an apogee and a perigee, yet they are able to continue in orbit. The same holds true for the Moon.

6) Axis in relation to Polaris

Point is no longer refuted, I will move on. Simply stating that we can never be sure about the correctness of a distance is not an argument against this point.

7) Galaxies

Again, this argument of not being positive about these facts arises. We are never going to positive on anything, but according to the science that we have now, it is the best approximation that we have. This is the reason it is a model, not a definite, absolute truth. It is possible stars are made of unknown substances, but according the science we have today, we are able to make the most accurate predictions we can.

8) Aether Across Earth's Surface

In the next two paragraph's of my opponent's argument it seems as if he contradicts himself. In order for his argument against my example of a ball to be correct (in which he correctly states that tossing a ball outside a car would be more relevant to the aether argument), both the aether and the Earth would have to be stationary, correct? If this is not the claim, then why doesn't the Aether knock everything over as it moves across a stationary Earth (as stated in his paragraph explaining Airey's Failure).

R9) Response to Question Answers

Sun's Orbit: I understand that in theory this is correct, yet I am unsure how this can be. You call for a stationary Earth for this argument while there are other arguments that show it is quite possible the Earth is spinning (Polaris Time Lapse Photos)

Center of Universe: I never stated there is or isn't a center of the Universe because my argument isn't based on it. Your's is. For your arguments to hold true, for a lot of them, you have the need to prove the center of the Universe is Earth. I don't because the Heliocentric Theory does not require the Earth to be at the center of the Universe.

Aether: I understand now, between the description you gave and additional research, that the aether could very well exist and even move. This contradicts your previous statement with the movement of the Earth, especially the argument with the four-wheelers and the ball.

Seasons: Thank you for the clarification of the seasons, and it's actually a fascinating explanation. I am also in agreement that the simplest explanation is not always correct. No argument against this though as it doesn't prove the geocentric model. Thank you for the explanation, nonetheless.


[1] -
[2] -
[3] -
[4] -
Debate Round No. 4


You state that if an object is moving faster than light you wouldn't be able to see it. Why? This is only a theory, and not provable due the the fact that no one on Earth has been able to make something move faster than the speed of light. The heavens are so much more vast than the earth, holding wonders that we stand in awe of as we get a small glance. It is not even logical to assume that the laws that run this Earth and sustain life would be the same as the laws the wondrous heavens are run by. Therefore I do not find it logical to use something we know so little about as an argument.

Motion of planets and stellar bodies: You are thinking to small and forgetting that the aether is also spinning. Picture as if the entire universe were the ball set in a circular motion in a friction-less environment. If this were so, (which it is in the geocentric model) all the planets and stellar bodies would have no scientific problem continuing in an orbital pattern due to being kept in place by the supper dense aether as it spins. It is like stirring a pot of soup. As you stir the pot, the contents of the soup rotate around the center. Notice that nothing big has to be in the center of the pot for the contents to spin because they do not rely on gravity, but simply the dense, spinning water to keep it in orbit. According to the law of conservation of angular momentum, And Newton's law of motion, this pot of soup would continue spinning forever if it was in a friction-less environment. The pot of Soup is the entire universe. (just in case you didn't catch that)

Time laps photos: This is what I am saying. the stars are MOVING. NOT EARTH. This is why the stars farthest from Polaris have a longer trail of light, as they have to move faster to cover their circumference in unison with the stars closer to Polaris, which have a much smaller circumference to cover. If the Earth was spinning, it would cause a spiral dizzy effect on the time laps photos because the sight of the camera would capture all the stars appearing to move the speed of the moving camera.

Moon's orbit: I will elaborate. If the Moon's apogee occurs on the side of the Earth that it needs to accelerate, it will slow down instead, and thus not be moving fast enough to get ahead of the supposed speed of the Earth orbiting the Sun.

The aether: The aether does not move across the ground of the Earth, it moves across the atmosphere of the Earth. If a helicopter were to hover in the atmosphere, the pilot WOULD have to compensate for an enormous wind resistance from the east or else he will automatically go west in comparison to the ground, just like the ball and the moving four wheeler. But this does not happen. The Earth acts the same as a stationary four wheeler: We feel no dominant wind resistance, and if something hovers straight up, it remains in the same spot in comparison to where they left the ground. These are all signs of a stationary Earth, not a rotating one.

You keep saying that time laps photos of Polaris are proof that the earth is spinning. It is NOT. It is proof that the stars are spinning and not the Earth, as I stated above in the time laps photos section of my argument. This with the above statement about the aether, and elaborating on the four wheeler analogy both give signs of a stationary earth and a rotating aether and contents thereof. The argument of the Moon's orbit shows that, using Kepler's laws, and Newton's law of motion, it would be impossible for the Moon to continue its orbit around the moving earth (as needed for the heliocentric model to work) when the Moon's apogee is on the side of the Earth opposite the Sun. Thus showing the heliocentric model faulty. And as far as I know, there is only one other model that works. And if the geocentric model is the only one unable to be proved faulty, It seems of a necessity that we embrace it rather than a more faulty model, thus making probable that the Earth really is in the center of the universe.


1) Speed of Light

If an object is moving faster than the speed of light, it would, quite literally, be moving faster than the light that is being given off. It is similar to breaking the sound barrier; a plane moving faster than the speed of sound cannot be heard until it has already passed. Likewise, a planet, or star, could not be seen until it had already passed, and would continue to stay ahead of the light being given off. This is not possible, as we are able to see the star/stellar body.

2) Motion of Planets/Stellar Bodies

I was not discounting the Aether. I understand your argument, stating that the super dense Aether traps the planets and carries it within its motion. However, your example using the pot of soup is flawed. I understand that the pot of soup is the Universe as well. What you don't account for, or even mention, is the pot itself. Where is the boundary of the Universe? Isn't it believed to be expanding? Even from a geocentric theory, even assuming the Earth is the center of the Universe, the Universe could still be expanding. If you were to take away the pot, the soup would certainly not maintain its circular motion. It would move in straight lines, expanding in every direction to the extent that it could.

3) Time Lapse Photos

Once again, I mistyped/wrongly explained the point I was attempting to make. I stated that the fan was moving, when I should have said you were spinning underneath it. It would have the same effect. By spinning underneath the fan, you would perceive that the outer limits of the fan would be moving at a faster speed than portions closer to the center. I apologize for making that error in my explanation. Furthermore, if the stars move in that orbital pattern (according to geocentrism), what are they orbiting? I was under the assumption that they were orbiting the Earth, and I fail to see how being able to view this circular motion above us at all times is orbiting Earth.

4) Moon's Orbit

Once again, you are under the assumption that the Sun plays the largest role in the Moon's orbit. The Earth, as stated, is what the Moon is orbiting, giving basis to the knowledge that the Earth plays a fairly large role concerning the Moon's gravitational source. I would make another point about the Moon, but it is the last round and you wouldn't have a chance to respond. Perhaps I will ask this in the comments.

5) The Aether

That is quite a broad statement, saying that the Aether moves across the atmosphere. This is not a set term; there is no beginning or end to the atmosphere, simply different layers. You are wrong to state that the ground of Earth, or more correctly the air directly above the Earth, is not the atmosphere (I understand that you didn't state this directly, but by differentiating the ground and atmosphere, it is implied). What if the height limit that planes fly at is still under the boundary of the Aether moving? In my understanding, it would still be possible fly under the current conditions.

6) My Proof

I do keep stating this. However, it does not disprove the theory either. It is in no way proof that the stars are orbiting, merely another way of attempting to explain it. You have been very keen on asking for proof, something that you have also identified as impossible (What if the methods are wrong? What if there was bias? How do we know for sure?). Kepler created his laws to fit the heliocentric model, yes. But he did not neglect the concept of the moon; his laws apply to them too. I understand that we can't simply put our trust in scientists, but to some degree we can. That is what they do, and it would be fascinating, and in my opinion extremely unlikely, that they have simply forgotten these arguments for years on years. This does not show the heliocentric model faulty, as you state, and therefore does not leave the geocentric model true. As I recall, the simplest explanation is not always correct. Even if it is more likely that the geocentric model explains the Moon's orbit (which I still don't see how it does), I fail to understand why that means the simplest model is correct. As you have stated previously, there is plenty we don't know about. Perhaps the Moon's orbit is one of them.

To recap the points argued in the debate:

Retrograde Motion
Motion of Planets
Time Lapse Photos
Position of Polaris
Moon's Orbit
Aether Arguments
Other Galaxies

I appreciate this debate. Definitely one of the better mannered and argued ones I've seen on the site (in my opinion). Thanks for a solid week and a half of debating and research, and I wish the best of luck to you in future debates.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by yoshidino 1 year ago
I would also like it if someone else challenged me to debate this topic, because I want to have the last word lol!
Posted by yoshidino 1 year ago
I apologize for not using my scriptural sources for the debate, but the debate was under the science category, and there was no way to know if pro believed the bible to be fact.
Posted by yoshidino 1 year ago
And of course, if the Earth really is stationary like these verses point to, than its likely that 1 Chronicles 13:30 is not metaphorical.
Posted by yoshidino 1 year ago
First of all In Psalm 19:1, The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Then down to 19:(4); ...In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, (5) Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. (6) His hoing forth is from the end of the heaven, and his CIRCUIT unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. In Isaiah 13:13; Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her PLACE, in the wrath of the LORD (Yahuwah) of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger. The word "place" in Hebrew is "makome" מקום. This is the same word you would use if you wanted to invite someone to your PLACE. In the idea of a stationary dwelling place. (I don't think they had mobile homes back then lol) I also have two stories in the bible that deem the heliocentric model impossible:

In the book of Joshua, chapter ten; Joshua goes to battle against four king and TOTALLY kick butt! But because there wasn't enough time in the day to kill everyone, he literally speaks to the sun and tells it to stand still. Joshua 10:12; Then spake Joshua to the LORD (Yahuwah) in the day when Yahuwah delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, ad he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; And thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13, And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 14; And there was no day like that before it or after it, that Yahuwah (the LORD) hearkened unto the voice of a man: for Yahuwah (the LORD) fought for Israel.

He told the sun to sit still, not the earth. If it was really the earth that just stopped spinning, that would mean the whole earth would come to a sudden halt from a speed of 1,000 mph. This woul
Posted by mdc32 1 year ago
Wait, what's your evidence? I'm a Christian too and I have never seen this. I'm curious to see if it is science related evidence based on certain occurrences or (likely metaphorical) verses like 1 Chronicles 16:30, saying "The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."
Posted by yoshidino 1 year ago
For anybody that has faith in the bible, I want you to know that I have proof from the Bible that is irrefutable to support the geocentric model. This is the main reason I believe it.
Posted by yoshidino 1 year ago
I often realize that as I post good arguments about something, someone gets mad. This has been a fun debate for me as I have learned much. and I believe pro enjoyed it too. I do believe that Einstein and other scientists have draw some pretty big conclusions based on bias. Be careful how much you trust people no matter how smart the seem, because everybody has a bias. Two people with different biases will look at the exact same thing and come up with a different conclusion. Thousands of people with the same bias will look at something and all draw the same conclusion based on their shared bias. Where you allow bias, you compromise logic.
Posted by mdc32 1 year ago
Ha. That last round was pretty weak, Con. We don't know how far away Polaris is? Then this debate isn't scientific at all, really - just who has the better, more logically sound argument for their model. You go on to say that it is possible things move faster than light. Are you kidding me? I'm not saying you're wrong, but there's way more research pointing to the fact that Einstein was right than there is research attempting to disprove him. Isn't that what scientific theories are for? To be proved and supported repeatedly, then accepted by both scientists and the general public as a logical idea? If Einstein's research can be discarded as easily as this, then do we really have any idea about any science? How do we "know" that there actually is a Sun? How do we "know" that Polaris is really a star? It might be just a really big ball of paper, for all we know.
Posted by Zanomi3 1 year ago
I feel as if throughout this debate I've asked questions where I've been confused, but have overall put up fair arguments concerning the two models. No need to call for "real scientists"; if you wanted that, is not the place for that. Also, I don't understand why we need a preexisting knowledge about the geocentric model. You have done a great job explaining through different analogies and examples, why not this one?
Posted by yoshidino 1 year ago
Guys, I'm wanting a debate with someone that actually knows a little about the two models. The seasons are easy with the geocentric model if you know it. get me a real scientist jeez. It is a "model," I can't really "show" it to you, I need you to know it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AbandonedSpring 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very long and interesting debates! It ultimately came down to the fact that Pro had more and better sources. Conduct was similar, Spelling and grammar was similar, however it was a a great debate all around.