Geocentrism

My opponent is misinterpreting my wording. Firstly, the source, and my earlier quotation, explained how the Coriolis effect was caused by the Earth's rotation. 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.) And my opponent's reasoning for disagreeing with my previous quote about "The speed and rotation of the Earth causes the differences in rotation of air patterns in the atmosphere" is misguided. This is because the atmosphere rotates with the Earth as well, for the same reason that you do not go flying off because of the Earth's rotation. (source 3) Actually, my favorite author/comic/physicist, Randall Munroe (of XKCD fame) explained this. In his book "What if?," he answers the following question: "What would happen if the Earth and all terrestrial objects suddenly stopped spinning, but the atmosphere retained its velocity?" In it, he explains that if the Earth was not spinning, the atmosphere would be drastically different. This is because the sun would be heating up only one side of the Earth (more on that later,) and this would cause the atmosphere facing the sun to scorch, causing massive heat storms. (full text on source 4, page 5 of Munroe's What If? book.) For my opponent's last attempt at refuting my argument, they claim that I offered no proof. This is not true. To quote myself, in round 2, 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 leads to differences in timing of communications. About your attack on my apparent rejection of physics, you are misinterpreting relativity. To quote source 5, "Special relativity predicts that an observer in an inertial reference frame doesn't see objects he would describe as moving faster than the speed of light. However, in the non-inertial reference frame of Earth, treating a spot on the Earth as a fixed point, the stars are observed to move in the sky, circling once about the Earth per day. Since the stars are light years away, this observation means that, in the non-inertial reference frame of the Earth, anybody who looks at the stars is seeing objects which appear, to them, to be moving faster than the speed of light." If satellites remained motionless around a motionless Earth, then the force of gravity would bring them back down. But, if the satellites orbited a motionless Earth, there could, by definition, be no geosynchronous orbits (source 6.) Furthermore, if my opponent is a geocentrist, as his debate topic, title, and username suggests, then the idea that the sun revolves around the Earth is absurd. We have measured the Sun's gravity from out of this solar system, all the way up to it itself. 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 (don't doubt Sir Isaac, because "mah boy's wicked smaht"[Dear grammar nazi voters of debate.org, this is a reference, please show me mercy {and yes, I did work this argument in for that reference.}]) Yet another argument is the Doppler effect. To quote from source 7, it states that "The Doppler effect is the shift of frequency of light (or any electromagnetic radiation) due to the relative velocity of source and receiver. If they are moving toward each other, the frequency rises; if they are moving apart, the frequency decreases. 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. We even put a cube corner light reflector on the moon that allows us to send a beam of laser light to the moon, which directly reflects back to the earth station that originated it. This can accurately measure the distance to the moon as it changes due to its orbital eccentricity. This can even measure the change in this distance due to the earth's rotation relative to the moon, confirming the round shape of the earth. Similar confirmation of the earth's shape and rotation comes from global positioning systems (GPS)." Another example is again from source 7, where it says, "Some early philosophers denied the rotation of the earth. They argued that if it were rotating, a stone dropped from the mast of a ship would not fall to a point on deck directly below, but would fall behind the mast. Experiment proved otherwise, because, as Galileo argued, the stone at the top of the mast was initially moving just as fast as the deck below, and retains that speed as it falls. So he concluded that even on land, if the earth moves, a stone dropped from a high tower falls to a point directly below. So the earth's rotation, he said, doesn't affect motion of objects on earth. But he was only approximately correct. There's more to this story. Galileo had not considered the fact that on a round rotating earth the top of a high tower actually moves faster than the ground at the base of the tower, due to it being farther from the center of the earth. So the stone at the top is also moving faster than the ground below, and retains this velocity all the way down. So it gets ahead of the ground and falls to the east of the point just below, opposite to the prediction of the flat earthers. The effect is small, because the difference in velocity at top and bottom is so small, but it is measurable with precision instruments. Flat earthers predicted the ball would fall beind the mast if the earth were moving, but it actually falls ahead of the mast. So the flat earther's experiment actually is another evidence for a round, rotating earth." Once more, source 7 comes through (as well as many other sources corroborating,) in the fact that satellites orbiting the Earth are launching into space taking advantage of the Earth's spin. For the (relativity) simple math behind it, here's the full quote, "With the exception of satellites intended for polar orbits, they [satellites] are launched heading eastward. This requires the least fuel. If launched westward they would need to gain as much speed as the earth (in the wrong direction) plus the additional speed to achieve orbital speed. Satellites in low orbit must reach speeds of about 17,500 mph. The launch rocket on the launching pad already has velocity toward the East due to the Earth's rotation. Launches near the equator gain 1,000 mph from Earth's rotation." Lastly (because my character limit and time/attention are running low,) another proof for a rotating Earth comes from atomic clocks, and, in source 7, this time referencing the New Scientist it states that, "Standards of length and time are now based on the microwave radiation from atomic energy level transitions. Cesium-133 has been used for this for several decades. Now strontium atoms offer a threefold increase in precision in such measurements. Einstein's special relativity theory predicts that clocks suffer time dilation when they are moving, and this has been experimentally conclusively confirmed. Now, with strontium clocks we can even compare the difference in speed between networked clocks located at different places on earth. In 2017 Pac"me Deva of the Paris Observatory and his colleagues did this, using optical fiber links between London and Paris, and one between Paris and Braunschweig, Germany. While this was reported in the press as a test of special relativity, it also serves as a measure of earth's axial rotation and its sphericity, since the cities being compared are at different latitudes, and therefore different distances, from the earth's axis, and have a different velocity due to that fact." So, using my opponents argument, do they "reject Relativity?" Sources: https://physics.stackexchange.com... http://io9.gizmodo.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.dictionary.com... https://www.lhup.edu...