The Instigator
xxx200
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

is earth moving or standing still?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,062 times Debate No: 20445
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (9)

 

xxx200

Pro

i am pro. i will argue that earth is standing still and con will argue that it is moving.

con has to show proof in support of his arguement.

first round is acceptance only.
imabench

Con

I accept and will be arguing that the Earth is in constant motion.

Debate Round No. 1
xxx200

Pro

well

earth is standing still.

there are 2 good reason to believe.

reason 1: we cannot know from earth if earth is moving or standing still. galileo conducted a thought experiment popularly known as galileo's ship.

in this experiment, earth is compared with a ship. a man residing in the ship observe carefully the objects of the ship in 2 situations, namely : when ship is standing still and when ship is moving. he found no change in the condition of objects in those 2 situation. so he could not know if ship is standing still or moving.

that same thing happen here on earth. we cannot say by looking at the objects wheather the earth is standing still or moving.

reason 2: if we can't say anything about earth, if it is standing still or moving, we have to rely on other evidences which describes the condition of earth. one such evidence is our ancient scriptures. allmost all religious scripture said that earth is standing still.

so may i conclude earth is standing still?
imabench

Con

If the definition of standing still is exhibiting no motion whatsoever, then I will proceed.

1) We can see from the Earth here that the Earth is indeed moving by observing the stars and the heavens. If the Earth were standing still then how come we have days? Because the Earth is revolving, the Sun naturally only strikes part of the Earth's surface, while the other part is left in darkness. That is why we have ight and day, because the Earth rotates and is not standing still.

You also claim that the Earth must be still since we cant see it move since we're on Earth, but you seem to forget that we have the technology to observe Earth from beyond its surface. Satellites in space observe Earths movement from space every minute of every hour, all day all year long, and Astronautics from space and even when they stood on the Moon were able to first-hand observe Earth's movement.

2) Ancient scriptures cant be used to definitively state that the Earth is standing still because such claims are not based off of any scientific data or factual evidence.... Just because something is written in ancient scripture doesnt mean its 100% true....

====================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Now I will introduce my own arguments for why the Earth is in Motion.

1) Gravity
If The Earth is standing still, then the massive gravitational pull of the Sun would have pulled our precious planet into the Sun's surface long ago, however because of Earths inertia and speed going around the sun, this has prevented our fiery destruction. The reason Earth has not been gravitationally sucked into the sun is because of Earth's movement around the Sun

2) Constellations.
Every night if you look up into the sky, you can see stars in the heavens that are probably part of constellations. Those stars have been in that order and arrangement ever since our ancestors first laid eyes on them, and if the Earth wasnt moving, than the only way those stars could stay in constant position night after night is if those billions and billions of stars were all spinning around the Earth at impossibly high speeds that somehow kept those stars completely aligned with respect to the Earth. However this is completely impossible since the stars that make up our constellations are light years away from here and light years away from each other.

Lets look at Sirius, the brightest star in the sky. It is currently 8.6 light years away. If the Earth were standing still, than the star Sirius would thus have to revolve around the Earth to explain its observable movement every night.

Circumference = pi x diameter
Circumference = 3.14 x 17.2 lightyears

So If the Earth was standing still, then the star Sirius would have to be moving at a speed of almost exactly 54 light years in perfect orbit around the earth, ONCE A DAY...... The speed necessary to achieve this feat would be impossible to overcome since even light cannot travel that even close to that fast from that distance.... Considering that Sirius is relatively close, what would be the case of the star Fomalhaut, a star 22.8 light years away would need a speed of (45.6 x 3.14) would mean this star would have to travel 143 light years per day too!

3) Seasons
If the Earth was standing still then how come we have seasons? The tilt of the Earths axis causes it to be slightly off balance so that as the Earth revolves around the sun, the majority of the suns heat energy strikes one hemisphere more than the other, resulting in the northern hemisphere being warmer than the Southern hemisphere during summer, and vice versa during winter.... If the Sun rotates around the earth that would explain the days, but it would not explain the seasons the Earth endures...

Ill end here for now
Debate Round No. 2
xxx200

Pro

1] technology saw earth is moving.

satellites, spaceships are themselves moving around earth. this may be an optical illusion. if you are in a moving train, you will see the trees, huts, and other objects are moving. but actually they are still , you are moving. this may be the case of satellite and technology.

2] seasons, day, night etc.

we have those things because of sun's movement from east to west. seasons we have because of sun's rays. in summer the sunlight is hot. in winter the sunlight is cold. and the like.

3] constellation i.e. star's position

star's position changes because they move from one position to another. earth is standing still.

these are my arguments. they are experienced by everybody on earth.so they are beyond reasonable doubt.

i can't see any reason why should i hold the view that earth is moving when i have other explanations.

thank you.
imabench

Con

1) If all the satelites in orbit were moving in the same direction, then your "theory" might be true, but that is not the case. Some satelites move in a North/South direction of orbit, and during that time they still observe the Earth moving east/west, which is only possible if the Earth was indeed rotating...

2) " in summer the sunlight is hot. in winter the sunlight is cold" - Clearly the Pro doesnt have a clue how the sun works. The sun remains in constant temperature and it has been like that since it first formed, it doesnt just click on and click off... The Earth experiences seasons because of the suns rays striking the Earth that is on a tilted axis so that as the Earth revolves around the Sun different parts of the Earth recieve different amounts of heat, giving the Earth seasons..

- 1 - The Pro has completely ignored my arguments about the Sun's gravitational pull and how the Earth would have been destroyed long ago if it was indeed standing still.
- 2 - The Pro has completely ignored my arguments about how it is literally impossible for the stars, located lightyears away, to move that fast around the Earth in perfect unison...

Despite Pro's arrogance I will introduce other arguments proving the Earth is in motion,

The Coriolis effect
http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
If the Earth were in still motion than this would be non-existent, but it does exist.

The other planets
All the other planets in the solar system , including former planets, asteroids, etc. all revolve around the sun, but if the sun revolves around the Earth at break-neck speed than all the other planets orbiting around the sun would exhibit very strange and unpredictable orbit patterns, this is not the case though.

The Oceans.
The Earth is in constant motion because of the gravitational pull the Moon has on Earth's oceans. The Moon and the Sun both cause tides on Earth, causing the Oceans to fluctuate which means the Earth is not standing still, instead over 70% of its surface is bulging and contracting...

Science
I dont know why I didnt argue this earlier, but every scientific study that is of worthy credibility has proven that the Earth is indeed moving.....

Seeing as How the Pro might completely ignore these arguments too, Ill end here for now...
Debate Round No. 3
xxx200

Pro

2) " in summer the sunlight is hot. in winter the sunlight is cold" - Clearly the Pro doesnt have a clue how the sun works. The sun remains in constant temperature and it has been like that since it first formed, it doesnt just click on and click off... The Earth experiences seasons because of the suns rays striking the Earth that is on a tilted axis so that as the Earth revolves around the Sun different parts of the Earth recieve different amounts of heat, giving the Earth seasons..


i just don't understand. if there is a relation between sunlight and heat,like the relation of object and its shadow, then absense of heat would mean absense of sunlight. it looks like :

sunlight................heat

then, no sunlight...............no heat

but in winter season we get just equal amount of sunlight but the temparature changes. heat is replaced by cold,icy cold sometimes. so it is sunlight that gives us cold because there is relation between sunlight and temparature.

2.1] The Pro has completely ignored my arguments about the Sun's gravitational pull and how the Earth would have been destroyed long ago if it was indeed standing still.

i did so because i don't know for sure if sun has gravitational pool at all.

2.2] The Pro has completely ignored my arguments about how it is literally impossible for the stars, located lightyears away, to move that fast around the Earth in perfect unison...

why it is impossible?


3] The Coriolis effect
If the Earth were in still motion than this would be non-existent, but it does exist.


did coriolis really fire the canonball and measure the result? is the result of the experiment used in firing canonballs and missilies or in ballistic science?

i am really doubting.

4] All the other planets in the solar system , including former planets, asteroids, etc. all revolve around the sun, but if the sun revolves around the Earth at break-neck speed than all the other planets orbiting around the sun would exhibit very strange and unpredictable orbit patterns, this is not the case though.

all other planets moving does not mean earth is really moving.

5] The Earth is in constant motion because of the gravitational pull the Moon has on Earth's oceans. The Moon and the Sun both cause tides on Earth, causing the Oceans to fluctuate which means the Earth is not standing still, instead over 70% of its surface is bulging and contracting...

i don't know if moon really has any gravitational pool. please show evidence that moon has gravitational pool and that pool is moving earth.
moon can move the tide but i don't know if it can move the earth. please show evidence.

6] I dont know why I didnt argue this earlier, but every scientific study that is of worthy credibility has proven that the Earth is indeed moving....

this sounds like every religious scripture that is of worthy credibility has proven that god do exist....



i don't find any reason to believe the scientists. i believe only those things
which everybody including i can feel or experienced. i don't believe in anything which nobody except some madmen can feel.

thank you

imabench

Con

How are you 27 years old and this ignorant?

1) Seasons argument: "heat is replaced by cold,icy cold sometimes"
Watch this video and learn why the Earth has seasons


2) Sun's gravitational pull argument: "i don't know for sure if sun has gravitational pool at all."
Proof that the Sun has a massive gravitational pull...
http://library.thinkquest.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...
http://www.gravityfromthegroundup.org...

3) Impossible speeds of distant stars argument: "why is it impossible"
Light is the fastest thing in the universe, nothing can travel faster than light. But in your beliefs you claim all the stars orbit around the Earth. Stars that are light years (a light year is the distance it takes for light to travel in a year) away from Earth would have to then travel around the Earth if the Earth was standing still.

I have shown though that if the stars had to orbit around the Earth, then they would have to travel many many light YEARS over the course of a DAY. This is impossible though because nothing can travel over 50 light years in a DAY because if it takes light to do that in 50 YEARS, and light is the fastest thing out there, then nothing could come even close to achieving that speed.

4) Argument over the Coriolis effect: "i am really doubting."
Why do you think its called the "Coriolis effect" if Coriolis didnt do something to prove his case???? The Earth's motion accounts for this twist and you cannot scientifically disprove that

5) Planets revolving around the sun argument
It is accepted that the planets revolve around the sun, along with everything else in the solar system. All the orbits these planets have around the sun are almost circular and predictable. However in your insane logic where the sun orbits around the Earth, all the other planets that orbit around the sun would have very irrational orbits since the sun is flying everywhere.

However, all the planets have a normal orbit, implying the sun is stationary. If the Sun is stationary it does not revolve around the Earth. If the Sun does not revolve around the Earth then we wouldnt have days, but we do have days. Therefore the only explanation of why the Earth can have days while the rest of the planets exhibit normal patterns of orbit around the sun is that the Earth MOVES.

6) The Tides argument: "i don't know if moon really has any gravitational pool. please show evidence"
See the second video. Since the Moon does move the tides that means the Earth is moving, since the tides represent 70% of the Earth's surface, meaning the Earth moves.
http://www.ehow.com...

7) Argument about science: "i don't find any reason to believe the scientists"
I would like to thank the Pro at this point for making it very clear to voters who to vote for....

Forfeited arguments:
Satelites proving the Earth is moving since Satelites move in different directions but all show the Earth moving in one direction

Debate Round No. 4
imabench

Con

1) The Pro has forfeited the argument that satellites can reveal that the Earth is rotating on its axis
2) The Pro has forfeited the argument that id the Earth were standing still the Sun's gravitational pull would have pulled the Earth into a fiery death long ago
3) The Pro has forfeited the argument that is it physically impossible for the stars to revolve around the Earth since the speeds necessary for this to happen are over 1000 times faster than the speed of LIGHT
4) The Pro has forfeited the argument that the Earth has seasons as a result of its orbit around the sun due to the tilt of the Earth's axle
5) The Pro has forfeited the argument that Earth's movement causes the Coriolis effect
6) The Pro has forfeited that since the other planets have a regular orbit around the sun that it would be impossible for the sun to revolve around the Earth at such speed to cause disruption of the orbits of planets around the sun
7) The Pro has forfeited the argument that the gravitational pull of the moon causes tides, which makes up 70% of the Earth's surface and causes it to move

Other interesting points
8) The Pro has admitted to have no reason to believe scientists, just keep that in mind when trying to believe his arguments
9) After all this the only shred of evidence the Pro tries to use is a hand drawn sketch found on the internet....

I thank the Pro for the debate and the voters for reading, I hope that the voters still have faith in humanity after reading this though....
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
I know what you're referring too but this guy is an idiot who wouldnt have understood what I was talking about, so I stuck with the simplest things I could think of
Posted by zanzibar123 4 years ago
zanzibar123
if you wanted to prove that the earth was rotating all you need to do is cite focault's penudlum experiment, as it is easily proved that a pendulums plane of oscillation is independent of any rotation of the fixed point from which it hangs, it is quite easy to show that if you hang a long pendulum with a heavy weight on it and then wait a couple hours for it to appear to rotate relative to your position you just proved that the earth is spinning
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
This is a weird argument to occur after Einstein made clear that all motion is relative to the observer. As Bertrand Russel pointed out, the issue of whether the earth moves is not truth apt. It's a viewpoint issue, not a matter of truth or falsity.

As for whether the stars could be rotating around the earth: http://xkcd.com...
Posted by GORGIAS 5 years ago
GORGIAS
I'm open to debating this with you Con.
Posted by Fluer 5 years ago
Fluer
May I suggest that pro brings in more recent scientific advancements, like 18th century or onwards at least.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
If he doesnt it only makes me look better when it comes time to vote
Posted by Fluer 5 years ago
Fluer
I hope Pro also has to show proof to support his arguement.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
xxx200imabenchTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO lacked any proper grammar, and failed to respond to con's superior points efficiently.
Vote Placed by DelilahRawr 5 years ago
DelilahRawr
xxx200imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: lol
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
xxx200imabenchTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm tempted to give Pro conduct point for Con's comment about ignorance. Pro forfeited the persuasion points, never having argued for the resolution. Rather than giving evidence that the earth is moving, he said we can't tell if it's moving, and that we can't say anything about the earth. Effective forfeit Pro shouldn't link to outside arguments instead of writing his own argument here. I'm tempted to give Con conduct points for that.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
xxx200imabenchTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious win for con, it is known that the earth moves. This debate was over before it started.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
xxx200imabenchTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Sad......Pro showed sufficient ignorance refusing to understand the mechanisms of seasons, the evidence for a gravitational pull, and so forth. Pro also wrote terribly, missing capitalization and so forth, and--to add to the weakness of his arguments--dropped much of Con's arguments and wasted an entire round posting a questionable source for argument.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
xxx200imabenchTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con just reaffirmed what is a widely known truth while Pro sounded like someone straight out of the 1600s...
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
xxx200imabenchTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lacked proper punctuation and presented no coherent arguments.
Vote Placed by iholland95 5 years ago
iholland95
xxx200imabenchTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more reasonable arguments and proofs
Vote Placed by GORGIAS 5 years ago
GORGIAS
xxx200imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted Pro because Con used some very debatable theories as evidence and did not exhibit any ability to think for himself.