Geocentrism

'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] Satellites orbiting near Earth (like LEOs / Low Earth Orbits) move eastward and take 1.5 hrs to orbit, so there's an east aether flow of -0.67 revolutions per hour Satellites orbiting far from Earth (like stars!) move westward and take ~24 hrs to orbit, so there's a west aether flow of +0.042 rph 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]"the idea that the sun revolves around the Earth is absurd."So you don't believe in General Relativity? Because it says the sun can revolve around the Earth, no problem."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"The motion of the sun around Earth doesn't have to involve gravity. But if it does, there could be enough mass on the opposite side of Earth to counteract the sun's pull so that Earth doesn't get dragged into orbit around the sun. But in either case, General Relativity says the sun can revolve around the Earth so do you reject General Relativity?"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."No it does not confirm the rotation of Earth. It only confirms that either (A) Earth is rotating, or (B) the satellite doing the measurements is rotating. Of course since there are two options, you haven't proven your case."This can even measure the change in this distance due to the earth's rotation relative to the moon"No, it actually measures the change in distance due to the moon's rotation relative to the Earth.My opponent said a stone dropped from a tower will fall to the East of the base of the tower. I need him to link me to a peer-reviewed paper describing such an experiment being performed.My opponent's argument using satellite launch speed fails because speed is relative. He says satellites in low orbit must reach speeds of about 17,500 mph, but if the Earth is used as a frame of reference the speed is that minus the supposed spin speed of Earth. What frame of reference is my opponent using to claim 17,500 mph? I'll tell you: he's using an imaginary frame of reference that doesn't physically exist, a frame that is spinning, relative to the Earth, westward at thousands of miles per hour (the exact number depends upon latitude)."Einstein's special relativity theory predicts that clocks suffer time dilation when they are moving, and this has been experimentally conclusively confirmed."If my opponent wants to bring up this type of experiment, he's going to have to cite a specific, peer-reviewed paper describing a specific example, and not a pop-sci article. (1) http://milesmathis.com...(2) www.reddit.com/r/Geocentrism/comments/36u57x/alfa_model_of_geostationary_satellites/