The Earth is not standing still, it is in constant motion

Such Confidence Pro. You would think he's actually been on ISS, or carried out an actual experiment to test the theories he believes. 1) Pro says an "invisible brown dwarf" is the base of my contention. I guess it would be news to Pro if I told him Brown Dwarfs - Actually Are Invisible, or nearly. Shall I name this prior brown dwarf theory that Pro thought to be baseless? I am talking about TYCHE, It is believed to be near Pluto. . http://news.blogs.cnn.com... "Astrophysicists John Matese and Daniel Whitmire from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette think data from NASA's infrared space telescope WISE will confirm Tyche's existence and location within two years. " If Pro understands Gauss's Law for magnetism . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_law_for_magnetismPro can conclude that it is very much so possible for one magnet to be suspended between two. We currently measure the distance of stars through a technique called triangulation. This technique stands true on earth, but does not take the unknown into consideration. An assumption is formed that tells us the color spectrum explains the brightness, which then assumes that the amount of light that "should" come from the star is a certain amount. Knowing this information should tell you; if one assumption is wrong it will terribly alter the results of the entire test. . http://science.howstuffworks.com...2) What we have here is a case of one theory coming first being accepted and the other theories never being created. Who wants do dedicate a life to creating a model that does not fit into the widely accepted model. We believe that no explanation beyond an axial tilt is necessary, or at least Pro does. Pro has asked that I use evidence, logic and sources. I concur, apparently in the center of our planet Earth there resides a spinning solid iron ball, which researchers call the "inner core" The ball is about the same temperature as the surface of the sun at approximately 5778 K and it is like a heart within a living body. Consider the earth as the body. A body similar to that of an Endotherm. Endotherms regulate their own body heat. In this analogy we can relate the adipose tissue which is used for heat regulation, to the earths mantle. Heat loss can be increased by dilation of the arterioles to increase blood supply to the skin, this can explain earthquakes. The process of convection (in Physics- the transfer of heat by the circulation or movement of the heated parts of a liquid or gas) in Endotherms can explain the Earth's volcanic eruptions. Increased activity of sweat glands in Endotherms increase heat loss by evaporation, The earth has a similar process. These are all signs of the Earth's self Regulation of body temperature. . http://pubs.usgs.gov...3) Thank you Pro for applauding my creativity. Consider that you could get billions of dollars in funding to make some low quality videos? That leaves room for motive, its also not very creative. Pro means to tell me that THIS video is a death to all doubt. . http://www.youtube.com...;I can't tell if the planets moving or not, honestly. If you say that you are sure it's moving, then I will agree to disagree. The earth is not round, so that might be computer generated. Here is a link to some one who's been off the planet and what he thinks about the video you posted; . http://www.youtube.com...The english translation says; The Earth is standing still, do you have jumper cables. Given this eye-witness statement, Con undoubtedly wins this point.4) Pro's response was; So what. So I repeat my contention. .. Coriolis effect is an effect of Coriolis Force. Therefore Pro is wrong. I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but the theory proposes that the earths spinning causes Coriolis Force and the effect is Coriolis effect. If the earth isn't spinning, we would find another reason for Coriolis Force. Its not proof of anything. It's an observation, that a canon ball (whens the last time someone saw an active canon) favors one direction over the other dependent on your position. The same result can happen on a planet that's standing still, the canon ball is going toward the magnetic pole that its closest too. (See Gauss's Law of Magnetism) 5) I didn't ignore this contention Pro. I agreed that you had a good point. I only asked that you consider the possibility that nothing is moving. When you look at a piece of paper with a still image it is "Impossible" for the image to actually move. But, somehow an optical illusion makes your eyes believe the movement is there. Then why is it impossible ? If a piece of paper and a pencil can achieve this feat, why can't the sky? I think that Pro and the likes of many others, would rather prove that the stars are real, than deny them. This is what Pro say's; "He keeps hiding behind his imaginary invisible sun theory rather than provide actual proof" and "he tries to match theories with stupider theories". By mentioning my brown dwarf theory in two seperate contentions, I was only displaying the growth process of theory. It starts out as a way to explain one thing, and next thing you know, it's Gravity and Pro is inviting it to his house to meet his parents. Is my theory any less imagined than the ones that pro quotes so confidently?6) The Moon is possibly the most debatable subject in history. I feel like I'm debating the Roman Catholic Church. I'm merely pointing out some obvious holes in some widely accepted theories. I believe NOTHING. If the Sun didn't have gravity and gravity was only central to the actual body of mass, everything would not float away, we would just develop new theories to explain the "IFS" and "WHYS". I don't appreciate Pro saying "I admit" something, resorting to word twisting won't win this for you Pro. I will elaborate on the theory presented by a well known astrophysicist, whom was born within the last 100 years. I chose, as Pro would say "one physicist", whom opposes the contention Pro's arguments Rely on. Gravity. I am sure the voters noticed that at some point in time every Pro argument has mentioned gravity. This gravity Pro mentions is strong enough to pull entire planets, but people are weightless in space, unaffected by its strength. logical abstraction. Verlinde said; "The presented ideas are consistent with our knowledge of string theory, but if correct they should have important implications for this theory as well. In particular, the description of gravity as being due to the exchange of closed strings can no longer be valid. In fact, it appears that strings have to be emergent too. "In short, Verlindes theory would propose a new line of reasoning beyond gravitational pull to explain planetary movement. . http://arxiv.org...7) I forgot that we were debating about how the moon was made. I never called you a liar, although you did put words in my mouth when you said "Con believes the Moon was once a part of the Earth and just suddenly "broke off" by using wordplay to twist an article to his favor. "I SAID; "The most widely *accepted theory (which means nothing) states that the Earth was forming from many rocks and chunks of icy material and came into contact with space debris that chipped off an actual piece of Earth, which later became the Moon. Dirty tactic to use for a moot point. The whole statement i made, once again since this has nothing to do with the Earth being in constant motion, should stand as proof AGAINST the reliability of all theories in general. Pro Ignored, The only undoubtedly observable fact of the entire debate. The MOON ORBITS THE EARTH, and we don't see it spin, AT ALL. You can explain it away with some 29.5 day theory all you want. The fact still stands, you have never seen the other side of the moon with your own two eyes.