The Earth orbits the Sun

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?