Geocentrism
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 9/6/2017 | Category: | Science | ||
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 640 times | Debate No: | 103827 | ||
 Pro All I have to do is refute his arguments to win. Good luck.  Con Firstly, on the news, there has been many stories about the recent hurricanes impacting North America. These are Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. What is interesting to learn when predicting and studying the movement of hurricanes is that the direction they head, as well as the directions they turn, are mostly impacting by the Coriolis effect. You may have heard of the urban legend of toilets in Australia flushes the opposite way, but while this is not true, this, when applied to larger areas, such as an atmosphere, it is true. The speed and rotation of the Earth causes the differences in rotation of air patterns in the atmosphere. The Coriolis effect has even been seen on Jupiter, and is even more severe (source 1.) Sources: https://www.nationalgeographic.org... https://scijinks.gov... While this is the most apparent source of learning that the earth rotates, another is the over 7,700 spacecraft, 530 astronauts, and the many countries that have had space programs and/or contain the ability to launch into space. http://claudelafleur.qc.ca.... Repeatedly, they have proven the movement of the Earth (by visual and by tracking means.) We also have launched the Voyager probes outside of the solar system, with the farthest being almost 13 billion miles, and they have turned around and captured Earth. This data, along with other probes, have proven the change in the earth, as well as the model of the heliocentric solar system. https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov... If anyone has questions on the rotation and orbit of the Earth, just message an astronaut. Here's a list of who is currently in space: http://www.howmanypeopleareinspacerightnow.com... Thank you. |
 |
|
Pro My opponent made two claims. The first is that the spin of Earth makes hurricanes spin, but he provides no proof. The second is that we can watch Earth spin from probes, but he provides no proof for this either. It's not the Earth that we see spinning in space videos. It's the satellite-mounted camera that is spinning around the Earth that makes it seem like the Earth is spinning in the video. Con "It takes Earth 24 hours to rotate one time. If you are standing a foot to the right of the North or South Pole, that means it would take 24 hours to move in a circle that is about six feet in circumference. That"s about 0.00005 miles per hour. Hop on down to the equator, though, and things are different. It still takes Earth the same 24 hours to make a rotation, but this time we are traveling the entire circumference of the planet, which is about 25,000 miles long. That means you are traveling almost 1040 miles per hour just by standing there...So even though we are all on Earth, how far we are from the equator determines our forward speed. The farther we are from the equator, the slower we move." Secondly, besides the ability for physicists to calculate the rotation of the earth in relation to probes or even just probes far away being able to watch as earth spins and moves around the sun (for instance the voyagers, or even the mars rovers communicating to Earth, the distance and timing of communications varies more drastically than if Mars orbited Earth[54.6 million km-401 million km, with 225 million being the average distance]) we have geosynchronous satellites. These satellites orbit the earth at the same velocity that the earth spins, causing it to orbit 24 hours/day, and therefore hover over a single spot on the Earth. If the Earth did not rotate, these orbits would continue like any other orbit. In addition, your argument refuting my first claim was a logical fallacy, I believe it's argumentum ad lapidem, or argument to the stone. This is when you refute an argument as absurd without proving its absurdity. I did provide proof, as I stated and reiterated in paragraph one of this current round. Your second point had more reasoning to it, and I hope that I cleared it up with my second paragraph on geosynchronous orbits. Sources: https://scijinks.gov... https://www.nasa.gov... http://www.philosophyinaction.com... |
 |
|
Pro "It takes Earth 24 hours to rotate one time." This is a claim that Earth rotates, not a proof. I reply with my own claim: "It takes the universe 24 hours to rotate one time." It's very interesting that IF earth were rotating, we'd be traveling 1040 mph at the equator, but since you haven't proven Earth is rotating, you haven't won any argument. "The speed and rotation of the Earth causes the differences in rotation of air patterns in the atmosphere." Actually if we were traveling east at 1040 mph at the equator as you claim, the wind should be blowing 1040 mph at the equator in the opposite direction. After all, you can feel the wind blowing if you stick your hand out a moving car at 60 mph, so why not if we're moving 1040 mph? Ironically for you, the calmest winds in the world are where they should be the strongest if Earth were spinning ... the doldrums at the equator. "The distance and timing of communications varies more drastically than if Mars orbited Earth." This is a claim. Prove it. Draw a picture or something. The reality is that the distance between Mars and Earth remain the same whether we take Earth a reference point or not. My opponent's second main argument is that geosynchronous satellites seem to hover over a single spot on Earth. He says if Earth didn't rotate, their orbit would be different. But since my opponent believes in Einstein's Theory of Relativity which says you can take any reference point, even Earth, to be motionless, my opponent needs to explain why he's contradicting his own theory at this point. Does my opponent reject Relativity? Con And my opponent's reasoning for disagreeing with my previous quote about "The speed and rotation of the Earth causes the differences in rotation of air patterns in the atmosphere" is misguided. This is because the atmosphere rotates with the Earth as well, for the same reason that you do not go flying off because of the Earth's rotation. (source 3) Actually, my favorite author/comic/physicist, Randall Munroe (of XKCD fame) explained this. In his book "What if?," he answers the following question: "What would happen if the Earth and all terrestrial objects suddenly stopped spinning, but the atmosphere retained its velocity?" In it, he explains that if the Earth was not spinning, the atmosphere would be drastically different. This is because the sun would be heating up only one side of the Earth (more on that later,) and this would cause the atmosphere facing the sun to scorch, causing massive heat storms. (full text on source 4, page 5 of Munroe's What If? book.) For my opponent's last attempt at refuting my argument, they claim that I offered no proof. This is not true. To quote myself, in round 2, I stated that the distance between Earth and Mars varies drastically, from "54.6 million km-401 million km, with 225 million being the average distance." This leads to differences in timing of communications. About your attack on my apparent rejection of physics, you are misinterpreting relativity. To quote source 5, "Special relativity predicts that an observer in an inertial reference frame doesn't see objects he would describe as moving faster than the speed of light. However, in the non-inertial reference frame of Earth, treating a spot on the Earth as a fixed point, the stars are observed to move in the sky, circling once about the Earth per day. Since the stars are light years away, this observation means that, in the non-inertial reference frame of the Earth, anybody who looks at the stars is seeing objects which appear, to them, to be moving faster than the speed of light." If satellites remained motionless around a motionless Earth, then the force of gravity would bring them back down. But, if the satellites orbited a motionless Earth, there could, by definition, be no geosynchronous orbits (source 6.) Furthermore, if my opponent is a geocentrist, as his debate topic, title, and username suggests, then the idea that the sun revolves around the Earth is absurd. We have measured the Sun's gravity from out of this solar system, all the way up to it itself. Its mass is also proven to absurdly larger than the Earth, and therefore, by the rules of the universe as written by Sir Isaac Newton, it is not possible for the Earth to have the Sun in orbit (don't doubt Sir Isaac, because "mah boy's wicked smaht"[Dear grammar nazi voters of debate.org, this is a reference, please show me mercy {and yes, I did work this argument in for that reference.}]) Yet another argument is the Doppler effect. To quote from source 7, it states that "The Doppler effect is the shift of frequency of light (or any electromagnetic radiation) due to the relative velocity of source and receiver. If they are moving toward each other, the frequency rises; if they are moving apart, the frequency decreases. We now have orbiting earth satellites that can image the earth with Doppler radar, primarily for gathering atmospheric data. This data confirms (a) the round shape of the earth, and (b) its rotation. We even put a cube corner light reflector on the moon that allows us to send a beam of laser light to the moon, which directly reflects back to the earth station that originated it. This can accurately measure the distance to the moon as it changes due to its orbital eccentricity. This can even measure the change in this distance due to the earth's rotation relative to the moon, confirming the round shape of the earth. Similar confirmation of the earth's shape and rotation comes from global positioning systems (GPS)." Another example is again from source 7, where it says, "Some early philosophers denied the rotation of the earth. They argued that if it were rotating, a stone dropped from the mast of a ship would not fall to a point on deck directly below, but would fall behind the mast. Experiment proved otherwise, because, as Galileo argued, the stone at the top of the mast was initially moving just as fast as the deck below, and retains that speed as it falls. So he concluded that even on land, if the earth moves, a stone dropped from a high tower falls to a point directly below. So the earth's rotation, he said, doesn't affect motion of objects on earth. But he was only approximately correct. There's more to this story. Galileo had not considered the fact that on a round rotating earth the top of a high tower actually moves faster than the ground at the base of the tower, due to it being farther from the center of the earth. So the stone at the top is also moving faster than the ground below, and retains this velocity all the way down. So it gets ahead of the ground and falls to the east of the point just below, opposite to the prediction of the flat earthers. The effect is small, because the difference in velocity at top and bottom is so small, but it is measurable with precision instruments. Flat earthers predicted the ball would fall beind the mast if the earth were moving, but it actually falls ahead of the mast. So the flat earther's experiment actually is another evidence for a round, rotating earth." Once more, source 7 comes through (as well as many other sources corroborating,) in the fact that satellites orbiting the Earth are launching into space taking advantage of the Earth's spin. For the (relativity) simple math behind it, here's the full quote, "With the exception of satellites intended for polar orbits, they [satellites] are launched heading eastward. This requires the least fuel. If launched westward they would need to gain as much speed as the earth (in the wrong direction) plus the additional speed to achieve orbital speed. Satellites in low orbit must reach speeds of about 17,500 mph. The launch rocket on the launching pad already has velocity toward the East due to the Earth's rotation. Launches near the equator gain 1,000 mph from Earth's rotation." Lastly (because my character limit and time/attention are running low,) another proof for a rotating Earth comes from atomic clocks, and, in source 7, this time referencing the New Scientist it states that, "Standards of length and time are now based on the microwave radiation from atomic energy level transitions. Cesium-133 has been used for this for several decades. Now strontium atoms offer a threefold increase in precision in such measurements. Einstein's special relativity theory predicts that clocks suffer time dilation when they are moving, and this has been experimentally conclusively confirmed. Now, with strontium clocks we can even compare the difference in speed between networked clocks located at different places on earth. In 2017 Pac"me Deva of the Paris Observatory and his colleagues did this, using optical fiber links between London and Paris, and one between Paris and Braunschweig, Germany. While this was reported in the press as a test of special relativity, it also serves as a measure of earth's axial rotation and its sphericity, since the cities being compared are at different latitudes, and therefore different distances, from the earth's axis, and have a different velocity due to that fact." So, using my opponents argument, do they "reject Relativity?" Sources: https://physics.stackexchange.com... http://io9.gizmodo.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.dictionary.com... https://www.lhup.edu... |
 |
|
Pro 'The direction, spin, and turning of hurricanes is directly related to the rotation of the Earth. To quote Hank Green, the Coriolis effect "refers to the earth's constant eastward rotation [and how it] influences how we view the trajectory of certain moving objects" (sources 1,2, round 3.)'
Since you direct us to your source for a complete explanation, I'll do the same: To quote Miles Mathis, "[Coriolis Effects] cannot be the cause of the tight curve even in the largest hurricane, because Coriolis curves don't curve that much." (source 1) "the atmosphere rotates with the Earth" Impossible. If Earth were really rotating, it would not drag the entire atmosphere with it as if the atmosphere were a solid. There isn't enough friction between the atmosphere and the ground for that to happen. This is easily provable ... spin a basketball. There is a slight breeze near the surface but first, this breeze isn't fast enough to keep up with the ball's spin and second, this breeze is nonexistant as you move away from the ball. If the atmosphere were a solid chunk of ice, yes it could be dragged into rotation with Earth. But it's not a chunk of ice, it's a gas, and it proves Earth isn't spinning. "I stated that the distance between Earth and Mars varies drastically, from "54.6 million km-401 million km, with 225 million being the average distance."" This distance variation would be the same whether Earth or Mars were taken as a point of reference. If we take Earth to be still, Mars is moving and the distance between them doesn't change. If we take Mars to be still, Earth is moving and still the distance between them doesn't change. "anybody who looks at the stars is seeing objects which appear, to them, to be moving faster than the speed of light" What's the problem with this? General Relativity says the stars actually are moving faster than light, and don't just seem to be ... they really are. "If satellites remained motionless around a motionless Earth, then the force of gravity would bring them back down." Wrong. I can explain this using aether: (see source 2) [begin quote]
The conflict in direction between the two aether flows causes the natural rotation of cosmic objects in the Earth frame to vary with distance from Earth, from – to +. THERE MUST BE A DISTANCE WHERE THE ROTATION CHANGES FROM – TO + ... WHERE THE ROTATION SEEN FROM EARTH IS ZERO (0). Of course, this is the GeoStationary Distance, GSD. There is no rotation here, because the two counter-rotating cosmic aethers cancel. Objects at the GSD stay fixed above the observer, as if they were floating. [end quote] (1) http://milesmathis.com... Con Secondly, a basketball doesn't have noticeable gravity [citation needed](reference:https://xkcd.com....) A basketball does not hold an atmosphere under it's own force. Therefore, you cannot compare a basketball to Earth when it comes to holding an atmosphere. The atmosphere is large, and friction between the ground and Earth isn't what keeps the atmosphere in place, it is gravity. The Earth doesn't "drag" the atmosphere through space, it holds it with gravity and momentum. This is why small planets, such as Mercury, don't have an atmosphere - they are too small to sustain one. Most importantly, if the Earth was truly motionless, you would reject the very notion of gravity. This is because, by definition, gravity is the force that pulls objects towards it core. This pulling causes the Earth to move (source 1, towards the end.) If the Earth was truly in a standstill, with even just the moon orbiting, it would soon be pulled into rotating. Now, if we factor in the Sun, with it supposedly (though physically impossible) orbiting the Earth, the Earth would pulled into rotating. Now, going back to the proven model of the solar system, with the sun at the center, the sun is also forced into rotating (sources 2-5.) Now, for the more interesting of my opponent's argument: the aether. There is no proof that the aether exists: furthermore, it has been disproven multiple times, most notable by the Michelson-Morley experiment, first in 1887, and again several times since then (source 6.) On the other side, my proofs regarding gravity and the rotating Earth have been proven time and time again. This is why the statement "If satellites remained motionless around a motionless Earth, then the force of gravity would bring them back down" is true.This can be proven with a basketball, contrary to your previous statement. First, drop a basketball. It falls towards the Earth. Secondly, throw the basketball as high as you can. It falls back down. Now strap that basketball to a rocket and launch that sucker 35, 800 kilometers into the air, then cancel out its velocity (or don't- just send it straight up.) It's going to fall back to Earth because of gravity. The aether does not exist. There is no proof. Geosynchronous orbits remain over the same spot of the Earth, and this is to to the satellite's period of rotation matching that of the Earth's (source 7.) Moreover, my opponent quoted a source from reddit, and the subreddit was /r/Geocentrism, which is not a scientific source. On the contrary, I have cited many scientists and reputable sources. Also, my opponent accusing me of not believing in General Relativity because I stated that the Sun can't revolve around the Earth. This is wrong because GR refers to the framepoint of the viewer, rather than the gravity of the situation (pun intended, sources 8,9.) From the view of Earth, yes it looks like the Earth goes around the Sun. This doesn't make it true. From a point above the solar system, the Sun's gravity is more powerful than Earth's. Let me explain why. The simple truth is that the Earth is tugged on by the Sun's gravity- whether you say the Earth is in the center of the solar system or not- that's how gravity works. The Sun is much larger, by about 333,000 times as much, than the Earth. Therefore, the more massive object's gravity wins out. If the Earth was motionless next to the Sun, it would be pulled way closer to it, eventually burning up. This is for the same reasoning that satellites can not be motionless around Earth- gravity pulls things to its core (source 10.) The next argument was that "the motion of the sun around Earth doesn't have to involve gravity." For this, I recommend source 11, source 12 if you want the explanation from NASA of source 11. Next, my opponent comments the logical fallacy of argumentum ad lapidem. Ad lapidem because they simply state that I'm wrong, and haven't proven my case even though I cited it. The mathematical explanation is source 13. My opponents next arguments contradict my previous source from round 3 (source 7) and did not prove their counterpoint effectively. My opponent also misstated my argument. I was, and am, correct because it has been proven by countless rocket launches that prove eastward burns off Earth are more efficient than other burns, such as polar or westward burns. My source 14, NASA, gives a good example of a test experiment that anyone with a playground can test. This playground test matches data from actual launches that a spinning planet gives a 'boost' when launching rockets off. If my opponent wants proof on the atomic clocks suffering time dilation as predicted by relativity and proving a rotating Earth they can see my sources 15-24. Another point on the Coriolis effect- it can effect long distance projectiles. Here's a quote from source 25, also source 7 in previous round. "During a World War I naval engagement near the Falkland Islands British gunners were puzzled why their precisely aimed guns were falling to the left of the German ships. Their guns had been corrected for the Coriolis effect"but for the Northern hemisphere. The Falkland islands happen to be in the Southern hemisphere. So the guns failed to correctly account for the earth's rotation." Furthermore, "Long distance projectiles and unguided missiles must be launched at a calculated angle and direction if they are to hit their targets. This requires taking the earth's rotation into account in the calculations." Sources: http://io9.gizmodo.com... https://www.nasa.gov... https://www.universetoday.com... https://www.livescience.com... http://www.dictionary.com... http://blogs.discovermagazine.com... https://www.physicsforums.com... Source 11: Source 12: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov... https://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu... https://spaceplace.nasa.gov... Source 15: https://www.sciencealert.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... https://www.newscientist.com... https://www.scientificamerican.com... https://www.scientificamerican.com... https://physics.stackexchange.com... http://www.askamathematician.com... http://www.phys.lsu.edu... Source 25: https://www.lhup.edu... |
 |
|
Pro "The source you used is a conspiracy theorist who is unable to prove his points against the standard of scientists." 
Con My opponent argues that we only have to prove to voters about whether the Earth moves or not. However, we must prove this with scientific rigor- that is the very basis of all science facts. My opponent further proves my point by insisting that the scientific method is not important. That “whatever standard whatever scientists have” is actually important- it is how we know how anything works. Without scientific rigor, science would be rooted more into philosophical thought rather than reality testing. My points, most especially the Coriolis effect, satellite launches, satellite orbits, gravitational pulling of all orbiting bodies, etc. have been, and constantly are, tested repeatedly. My point against my opponent was that they backed their counterclaims with weak evidence. The 25 sources I used, in contrast, were educational and governmental sites, reliable sources, based in scientific rigor and the scientific method. My opponent insists that "This [Coriolis effect] does not make a spiral or any cyclone shape! In your imaginary world, the Coriolis Force would have to push the first red arrow in the opposite direction in order to complete a circle and make a cyclone. But it doesn't!" This however, does not hold up. As I have argued since round one, hurricanes are directly caused by the Coriolis effect, and this effect is caused by the rotation of the Earth. For more information, see previous rounds, sources, and the following diagrams.
   The coriolis effect also affects the global ocean currents as well the air currents and development of hurricanes as described in my previous sources and diagrams. For my opponent’s next argument, they contest that a basketball has comparable gravity to the Earth’s. Even in their diagram, they show that, inch for inch, gravity is the same on Earth as on a basketball in outer space. However, a basketball is much smaller than the Earth [citation needed](reference:xkcd.) Therefore, the gravity of a basketball cannot be compared to the gravity of Earth, rendering their point invalid. Furthermore, the Planetary Science Institute states that, “The smaller the object, the lower the gravity, so the escape velocity is lower and it is harder to retain an atmosphere (Moon and Mercury).” Therefore, the comparison between spinning a basketball on Earth and comparing it to the entire Earth’s atmosphere is absurd. Thirdly, if you are spinning a basketball on Earth, the Earth’s gravity is the dominating force, so a basketball wouldn’t grow an atmosphere. For more, see sources 1 and 2.
Next, my opponent argues, “As you see, the force of gravity can only hold the atmosphere near the Earth (and the ball). It cannot and will not spin the atmosphere, because gravity only pushes the air downward. It doesn't push sideways around the Earth.” This is wrong because gravity does hold the atmosphere to the Earth, and the rotation of the Earth causes the Coriolis effect, which pushes the air sideways. I have proven this in my previous rounds and earlier in this one. My opponent points out that “Isaac Newton himself admitted there can be a nother force besides gravity which would prevent Earth from being pulled around the sun so that Earth could remain motionless in the center of the universe.” This is a theory by the beloved scientist to attempt to explain why things appear to orbit the Earth. This was proven wrong, as it was created over 250 years before anything went to space. We have launched many probes far off into space, the farthest being nearly 13,000,000,000 miles from Earth (source 3.) The voyager probes have looked back at Earth, in addition to their constant communications with Earth. They also show that other planets move, and, as described by my previous arguments and rounds, this movement would pull on whatever body it orbits and force it to move. So, if the planets orbit the Sun, the Sun would be forced into rotating about itself, and if the planets and the Sun defy gravity, and orbited Earth, the Earth would be forced into rotating. That is the very basis of gravity.
Furthermore, we have not ever found some force “equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun,” and this does not hold up to scientific rigor or the scientific method, their counterpoint is rendered invalid.
My opponent also does not understand what the Michelson-Morley experiment was about. If you read my previous sources, there it did not prove that Earth did not move, rather it proved that the aether does not exist. To quote my source 4, “If aether exists, the Earth moving through it would cause a "wind" in the same way that there seems to be a wind outside a moving car. To a person in the car, the air outside the car would seem like a moving substance. In the same way, aether should seem like a moving substance to things on Earth. The interferometer was designed to measure the speed and direction of the "aether wind" by measuring the difference between the speed of light traveling in different directions. It measured this difference by shining a beam of light into a mirror that was only partially coated in silver. Part of the beam would be reflected one way, and the rest would go the other. Those two parts would then be reflected back to where they were split apart, and recombined. By looking at interference patterns in the recombined beam of light, any changes in speed because of aether wind could be seen. They found that there was in fact no substantial difference in the measurements. This was puzzling to the scientific community at the time, and led to the creation of various new theories to explain the result. The most important was Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity.” See also: Source 5. My opponent further steps into the realm of ancient pseudoscience by insisting that I “have” to agree that their idea of an unproven, scientifically disproven, is true, even when I have given multiple examples of science disagreeing with these so-called “aether flows.” On the contrary, my point of "Geosynchronous orbits remain over the same spot of the Earth, and this is to to the satellite's period of rotation matching that of the Earth's" has been proven time and time again by the countless satellites and probes launched. As I have stated, “my dear opponent,” your interpretation, shown by your interjections in the quote, is misinterpreted. Besides the fact that we are so far away from the stars, and therefore their gravity can not have any noticeable impact on our interior solar system (source 6,) I do not reject Einstein.If we go to a fixed point above the solar system, or even the probes we’ve sent, we can see that it is the Earth that orbits the Sun. In fact, General relativity proves that the Earth orbits the Sun. This is because the mass of the Sun is greater than the mass of the Earth, and pulls Earth into orbit. In fact, if anything was interacting with Earth, it would force it to move, no matter how small. To quote my source 7, CalTech, “As we shall see, it curves space, it slows the flow of time, and it drags space into tornado-like motions — at least that is what Einstein’s general relativity predicts.” My opponent states that my claim, citing NASA, that rockets burn more efficiently when taking advantage of Earth’s eastward rotation “doesn't prove Earth is spinning.” It has nothing to do with relative motion- the fact is that they burn LESS fuel when going eastward because the Earth’s rotation throws the rocket out like a sling. See my source 14 on the last round. If my 9 sources showing how time dilation works, including a video of the experiment, is not enough for my opponent, they can review my sources 8 and 9 here. Source 9 shows the many experiments proving time dilation and Earth’s spin. In addition, and most noticeably, the rotation of the Earth about its axis causes the seasons. The part of the Earth closest to the Sun is in summer (June-August, northern hemisphere, December-February, southern hemisphere,) and farthest away is in winter. This cannot be caused by any “aether.” In conclusion, if the Sun, let alone all the other bodies of the solar system, or the entire universe, as my opponent claims, gravity from the more massive Sun would AT LEAST pull the Earth towards it. That is the nature of gravity. If you drop a basketball from a plane it will move towards Earth. And, if by some magical, unproven, way that the Earth remains at the center of the universe, it would be tugged on by the many bodies orbiting it. Even the Sun moves- both by rotating and by moving through the galaxy, and the galaxy through the local system. If the Earth somehow took the place of the Sun, it would AT LEAST rotate. This, in addition to the numerous other proven facts that I put forward, proves that my point that the Earth moves at all is true, while my opponent has not been able to disprove my points without dropping into untested, disproven pseudoscience. Thank you for this debate, and good luck in any further debates. Sources:
3:https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov... 4:https://simple.wikipedia.org... 5:https://www.khanacademy.org... 7:https://www.cco.caltech.edu... |
 |
2. The rotation of other planets have been shown to cause the rotation of atmospheres (see atmospheric probes to jupiter)
3. The Earth's gravity doesn't "push the atmosphere against the basketball," it pushes it against the Earth. The Earth's gravity is superior.
4. There is no proof that the universe is spinning around the Earth, while my arguments have shown numerous examples of why it does spin, how it does spin, etc. GR is not geocentrist either, as I explained in my arguments. It's all about perception. There is no way for the universe to rotate around the Earth, as our gravity is not that strong.
It's is Earth's gravity that pushes the atmosphere against the basketball, not the basketball's gravity. Lol. Atmospheric pressure.
It doesn't matter if the earth orbits the satellite or the other way around. Either way, it proves the earth moves according to pro's opening statement. Geostationary satellites prove either 1) The earth orbits the satellite, therefore the earth moves, or 2) The satellite orbits the earth. Because the satellite is geostationary and remains over the same point on the earth's surface, earth must be spinning at the same rate the satellite orbits. Therefore the earth moves.