Geocentrism

"The source you used is a conspiracy theorist who is unable to prove his points against the standard of scientists."This is a debate between me and you to prove before the voters, not whatever standard whatever scientists have. Here, I've made an illustration to get my point across. As you see, the Coriolis Force is the opposite direction of Earth's rotation. It pushes a north wind (southbound wind) to your left, and it pushes a south wind also to the left. This 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! You can prove my image is correct using a baseball and a red marker. You will find that if the ball is spinning to the right and you try to draw a line from the top to the bottom, that line will curve just like my picture shows, and the same applies if you draw a line from the bottom to the top while the ball is spinning (slowly, in your hand of course)."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."Actually ...I actually can. The Earth's gravity creates the same exact air pressure pushing on the ground as it does on the surface of the basketball, 15 pounds per square inch. Therefore my analogy is perfectly valid! As you see, the force of gravity can only hold the atmosphere near the Earth (and the ball). It cannot and will not spinthe atmosphere, because gravity only pushes the air downward. It doesn't push sideways around the Earth."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."Of course I don't reject gravity. I just used it to prove my own point. Anyway, 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:"Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest" (source 3)"There is no proof that the aether exists: furthermore, it has been disproven multiple times, most notable by the Michelson-Morley experiment"False. The Michelson-Morley experiment proved that Geocentrism is true. They shot a lightbeam in the direction they thought Earth was moving, and expected it to move slower than a lightbeam going the opposite direction, because they would be catching up with the first light beam but zooming away from the second. They actuallyfound both lightbeams traveled the same speed, proving Earth isn't moving at all."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"No, it's because Earth isn't moving but two counter flows of aether hold the satellite in place in the sky. I already explained this to you. You haven't proven the aether idea wrong. In fact, since I've proven in other ways how Earth can't be spinning, you actually have to admit there's an aether holding the satellite up.Also, General Relativity says Earth can be not spinning, and the satellite would still float in the air because it would be held up by the force of the stars. Don't believe me? You don't have to. Just believe Einstein (I replaced K and K' with 'the universe' and 'Earth' since that's what his notation stood for):Let the universe be a Galileo-Newtonian coordinate system and let Earth be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to the universe. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the Earth coordinate system [like geosynchronous satellites!], while no such forces would be present for objects at rest in the universe.Already Newton [and my debate opponent!] viewed this as proof that the rotation of Earth had to be considered as "absolute," and that the Earth could not then be treated as the "resting" frame of the universe.Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of the Earth; one could just as account for them asresulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses [like stars!] as evidenced in the vicinity of the Earth, whereby the Earth is treated as being at rest.So you see, my dear opponent, Einstein admits that the force holding up your geosynchronous satellites while Earth remains non-rotating is the centrifugal force caused by the stars spinning around a motionless Earth. Do you reject Einstein?"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"That doesn't prove Earth is spinning. It just proves you don't understand the concept of relative motion and how speed is relative to what you're measuring it from. From your point of view, where Earth is considered to be spinning eastward at 1000 mph at the equator, younecessarily interpret the speed of launch to be its speed relative to the ground, plus the 1000 mph spin of Earth.But from my point of view, the real one where Earth is not spinning eastward, it is space that is spinning westward at 1000 mph, so I interpret the rocket shooting towards the stars faster not because the rocket got some boost, but because the stars are moving westward towards the rocket (unlike in your perspective, where they aren't moving).See? You interpret eastbound rockets getting closer to the fixed stars as the rocket being boosted by Earth, but I interpret it as the stars moving towards the rocket without Earth spinning at all."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."None of these sources are peer-reviewed, like I asked. "Another point on the Coriolis effect- it can effect long distance projectiles"I didn't deny that. But in Geocentrism the cause of the Coriolis effect isn't an eastward spinning Earth, it's a westward spinning aether. A westward spinning aether will cause the same effect. And in your General Relativity that you believe in, it's the rotating stars that cause the effect, like Einstein said.(3) Newtonian Relativity: A Neglected Manuscript, an Understressed Corollary, by George E. Smith of Tufts University