Geocentrism

In my opponent's first attack, they claim that the Coriolis effect does not cause the turning and rotating of hurricanes. The source you used is a conspiracy theorist who is unable to prove his points against the standard of scientists. My sources, on the other hand, used information that has been proved time and again by both climatologists and physicists. For more information on what I said, see previous rounds. Secondly, a basketball doesn't have noticeable gravity [citation needed](reference:https://xkcd.com....) 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. The atmosphere is large, and friction between the ground and Earth isn't what keeps the atmosphere in place, it is gravity. The Earth doesn't "drag" the atmosphere through space, it holds it with gravity and momentum. This is why small planets, such as Mercury, don't have an atmosphere - they are too small to sustain one. 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. This pulling causes the Earth to move (source 1, towards the end.) If the Earth was truly in a standstill, with even just the moon orbiting, it would soon be pulled into rotating. Now, if we factor in the Sun, with it supposedly (though physically impossible) orbiting the Earth, the Earth would pulled into rotating. Now, going back to the proven model of the solar system, with the sun at the center, the sun is also forced into rotating (sources 2-5.) Now, for the more interesting of my opponent's argument: the aether. There is no proof that the aether exists: furthermore, it has been disproven multiple times, most notable by the Michelson-Morley experiment, first in 1887, and again several times since then (source 6.) On the other side, my proofs regarding gravity and the rotating Earth have been proven time and time again. This is why the statement "If satellites remained motionless around a motionless Earth, then the force of gravity would bring them back down" is true.This can be proven with a basketball, contrary to your previous statement. First, drop a basketball. It falls towards the Earth. Secondly, throw the basketball as high as you can. It falls back down. Now strap that basketball to a rocket and launch that sucker 35, 800 kilometers into the air, then cancel out its velocity (or don't- just send it straight up.) It's going to fall back to Earth because of gravity. The aether does not exist. There is no proof. 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 (source 7.) Moreover, my opponent quoted a source from reddit, and the subreddit was /r/Geocentrism, which is not a scientific source. On the contrary, I have cited many scientists and reputable sources. Also, my opponent accusing me of not believing in General Relativity because I stated that the Sun can't revolve around the Earth. This is wrong because GR refers to the framepoint of the viewer, rather than the gravity of the situation (pun intended, sources 8,9.) From the view of Earth, yes it looks like the Earth goes around the Sun. This doesn't make it true. From a point above the solar system, the Sun's gravity is more powerful than Earth's. Let me explain why. The simple truth is that the Earth is tugged on by the Sun's gravity- whether you say the Earth is in the center of the solar system or not- that's how gravity works. The Sun is much larger, by about 333,000 times as much, than the Earth. Therefore, the more massive object's gravity wins out. If the Earth was motionless next to the Sun, it would be pulled way closer to it, eventually burning up. This is for the same reasoning that satellites can not be motionless around Earth- gravity pulls things to its core (source 10.) The next argument was that "the motion of the sun around Earth doesn't have to involve gravity." For this, I recommend source 11, source 12 if you want the explanation from NASA of source 11. Next, my opponent comments the logical fallacy of argumentum ad lapidem. Ad lapidem because they simply state that I'm wrong, and haven't proven my case even though I cited it. The mathematical explanation is source 13. My opponents next arguments contradict my previous source from round 3 (source 7) and did not prove their counterpoint effectively. My opponent also misstated my argument. 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, such as polar or westward burns. My source 14, NASA, gives a good example of a test experiment that anyone with a playground can test. This playground test matches data from actual launches that a spinning planet gives a 'boost' when launching rockets off. 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. Another point on the Coriolis effect- it can effect long distance projectiles. Here's a quote from source 25, also source 7 in previous round. "During a World War I naval engagement near the Falkland Islands British gunners were puzzled why their precisely aimed guns were falling to the left of the German ships. Their guns had been corrected for the Coriolis effect"but for the Northern hemisphere. The Falkland islands happen to be in the Southern hemisphere. So the guns failed to correctly account for the earth's rotation." Furthermore, "Long distance projectiles and unguided missiles must be launched at a calculated angle and direction if they are to hit their targets. This requires taking the earth's rotation into account in the calculations." Sources: http://io9.gizmodo.com... https://www.nasa.gov... https://www.universetoday.com... https://www.livescience.com... http://www.dictionary.com... http://blogs.discovermagazine.com... https://www.physicsforums.com... Source 11: Source 12: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov... https://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu... https://spaceplace.nasa.gov... Source 15: https://www.sciencealert.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... https://www.newscientist.com... https://www.scientificamerican.com... https://www.scientificamerican.com... https://physics.stackexchange.com... http://www.askamathematician.com... http://www.phys.lsu.edu... Source 25: https://www.lhup.edu...