Geocentrism

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’s only counter to the rotation of the Earth is the aether, a medieval attempt at explaining why things appear to rotate around Earth, when, since then, we have proven, as I have shown in my other arguments, that the Earth spins and moves around the sun. 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: 1:https://www.psi.edu... 2:http://www.pbs.org... 3:https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov... 4:https://simple.wikipedia.org... 5:https://www.khanacademy.org... 6:https://www.nasa.gov... 7:https://www.cco.caltech.edu... 8:https://www.omicsonline.org... 9:http://research.omicsgroup.org...