The Earth orbits the Sun

Some great arguments posted by my opponent, and it truly is fascinating to see an opposing side to a topic that may be taken for granted. I will attempt to refute these points (and refutations of my points). R1) Parallax My opponent poses a strong argument that parallax could be seen with a geocentric model, and according the video, he shows that it is possible. However, this comes with some grand assumptions. First, for this to work, one must assume that the stars in the rest of the universe orbit the sun. This would be quite difficult to prove true, mostly because of the vast distance separating the stars and the Sun, or the supposed center of orbit. I am not stating that the description of parallax concerning a geocentric model is wrong in theory, but with the current knowledge of the stars it doesn't make sense. Take the equation for gravitational pull for example [1]. By plugging in numbers of the Sun and the closest star, Proxima Centauri [2] [3], one can find that the gravitational pull is equivalent to about 2.47 x 10^16 Newtons of force. This seems like a lot, yet when compared to the force exerted on the Earth (about 3.5 x 10^22 Newtons) [4], one sees that the force exerted on the closest star is over one million times smaller than that exerted on the Earth. If this is the case for the closest star, it would be difficult to believe for stars that are much farther away from the Sun. R2) Retrograde Motion Again, this could work in theory, as the video showed. However, this merely states that it could theoretically be described through a geocentric model. It does nothing to prove Geocentrism, nor disprove Heliocentrism. Likewise, this would require that everything else in the universe revolves around the Sun, or at least the rest of the Solar System. How are we positive these orbits or revolutions concerning the rest of the Universe are correct? R3) Gravity I understand now that just because an object is smaller it must revolve around the larger, due the the force being exerted in both directions, according to Newton's Third Law. Once again, however, I would like to see a proof that the Earth is the center of the Universe, regardless of the rest of the universe orbiting the Sun. Not saying that this is impossible or anything along those lines, I would just like to see proof of this before believing it. Heliocentrism, at least for the concept of our Solar System and even just the Earth and Sun alone, does not require a set center of the Universe. R4) Time Lapse Photos While I am not sure which photos you are referring to, I understand the argument being stated. I would like to point out that Heliocentrism does not state that everything else in the Universe is stationary; it is entirely possible that the stars are also moving. Furthermore, I am not quite understanding how one can determine which stars are close or further from time lapse photos alone (unless they were denoted previous to the viewing). R5) Moon's Orbit My opponent questions what force acts on the Moon to alter its motion, causing it to slow down and speed up in a seemingly controversial pattern. The simple answer to this is that the Earth also acts on the Moon. With an extremely elliptical orbit, it makes sense that the Moon could speed up and slow down as it changed distances from the Earth [5]. Similarly, I appreciate the example of the two men running around the track. It allows one to understand what is truly going on in the Solar System. However, that example is in no way put into perspective. With an orbital circumference around the Sun nearly 390 times longer than the Moon's orbital circumference around the Earth, one would have to drastically change the distances the two men would run [6] [7]. While I do not have exact numbers (I could calculate them if needed), the man running circles around the other would have to vary his speed in such a way that could hardly be seen; in other words, the Sun wouldn't play as large of a role in the Moon's orbit. R6) Polaris Position The link to the YouTube video didn't link correctly, would my opponent be able to repost this link? If I am understanding correctly (please correct me if I am wrong), this argument is based around the thought that Polaris would not be directly above the Earth six months apart due to the change in position of the Earth. However, Polaris is around 430 light years away from Earth, just over 4 x 10^15 km away, a vast distance separating the two bodies [8]. Furthermore, Polaris itself is not the exact line of the Earth's axis, but instead the point that appears to be in the middle of a circle Polaris revolves around [8]. This, along with the fact that the exact placement of this line of sight of the Earth's axis is ever changing (due to Earth's axis changing) [9], shows that the Polaris argument is not enough to disprove a Heliocentric model, and in fact supports this claim. I am only going to post two further arguments this round to support my claim, seeing as I am still learning more about the topic. P1) Other Solar Systems This argument comes from outside information gathered from other solar systems. When looking at other galaxies and solar systems in our universe, it is hard to disagree or disprove those orbits that we can view. For example, the Solar System KOI-351 has planets that orbit a central star in a very similar fashion to ours (supposedly) [10]. This would, in my opinion, be difficult to refute because we are able to see these orbits take place. P2) Kepler's Laws I understand that my opponent used one of these laws to attempt to argue concerning the Moon's orbit, yet I stand by these laws [11]. The math checks out, as well as the fact that these were not only made for planets, but also for other satellites, artificial or natural [12]. Looking forward to my opponent's response. Sources: [1] http://www.physicsclassroom.com... [2] http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov... [3] http://www.tru.ca... [4] http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov... [5] http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu... [6] http://solarsystem.nasa.gov... [7] http://solarsystem.nasa.gov... [8] http://stars.astro.illinois.edu... [9] http://csep10.phys.utk.edu... [10] http://www.universetoday.com... [11] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [12] http://www.britannica.com...