The Earth orbits the Sun

For my argument on parallax, pro agrees that it may be possible for the stars to all orbit the sun, but says that it is hard to believe because of our knowledge of the stars. Truth is, is we don't know much at all about the stars. we really only know as much as we can from pictures taken, and it seems not right to draw a scientific conclusion based on something we know so little of. But Let me ask you this.... What kind of a galaxy do we live in?? A spiral galaxy. Tell me, why do you think the entire galaxy appears to be spinning around the center (whether Sun or Earth)? It is possible (we don't know) that some sort of force set the stars in motion, and regardless of gravity, they continue in the same motion until another force acts upon them (Newton's law). They could move without the effect of gravity because they are embedded in the supper dense aether (space), which, according to the geocentric model, moves with the contents thereof. That is only one possibility out of many among the things of the universe that we don't know. We do know though, that something did set all of what is moving in space in motion at one point. But what did that is another debate. Regarding Mars: I did not bring an argument against the heliocentric model using Mars; pro did against the geocentric model. I simply showed how we can see the same effect on Mars with both models. You ask how we know the revolutions of the rest of the universe are correct. My answer... That is a great question. But remember what I said about how we live in a SPIRAL galaxy. Think of a ceiling fan. The tip of the fan blade are moving so fast compared to the center of the fan, but in proportion to the size of the whole fan they aren't moving that fast. It could also be so with the stars in proportion to the whole universe. How do we know for sure? Well as far as I know, The two models at topic are the only ones that can come close to supporting what we do know based on observation. So all we have to do is disprove one. Process of elimination, and I think we're down to two. So it is my attempt to disprove the heliocentric model because I have good reason to believe the geocentric, which reason shall remain anonymous. This comment regarding Mars goes for you comment on gravity as well. Time laps photos: I disagree at your statement that the heliocentric model does not require the stars to be stationary. But even so, in saying this, you contradict your previous statements on gravity, retrograde motion and parallax by saying the stars may be moving. Since you were a little confused about the time laps photos I will elaborate. And the caps on certain words are simply for emphasis and not to be rude... We can see, through time laps photos, that the stars FARTHEST FROM POLARIS appear to be moving faster than the stars that are CLOSEST TO POLARIS by the size stream of light they leave behind in the photos. You should google "time laps photos of Polaris" to see what I am taking about. This would not be if it were the Earth spinning instead of the stars. If it was the Earth that was spinning, the stars would all have the same size stream of light behind them because they, in actuality, would not be moving, but the Earth spinning at a constant speed. The Moon's orbit: You say that the Moon could accelerate and decelerate as it gets farther and closer to the Earth. But the acceleration and deceleration we are talking about is that which would have to happen daily, while the Moon only gets farther and closer to the Earth in a six month period. So that cannot explain the daily change of speed in the Moon's orbit. You also mention that, in proportion to how fast the Earth is orbiting the Sun (theoretically), that the Moon's change of speed would not be that much... But no matter how much or how little, it still breaks Newton's law. Also, The Earth, according to the heliocentric model, travels around the Sun at about 107 km/h, so we are talking about thousands of kilometers per hour change in the Moon's speed per day. What force could be causing this?? There is none. Polaris position: You say that Polaris is 430 light years away. How do you know? How do the scientists know this?? No one in the world has the technology to measure the distance of the stars. The parallax is too small to use. Scientists do not really know how far away the stars are. If the Earth was moving along it's supposed 300 million km wide orbit, the time laps photos of Polaris would NOT stay the same year around. We have been told many lies, as scientists work towards their agendas. Other "solar systems": When viewing other "solar systems" or galaxies, the only thing observable through the Hubble telescope is a brightness in the centers of these galaxies. We do not even know what this brightness is, and can only assume what it might be. When viewing KOI 351 in the Hubble telescope, all that is visible is a large bright center with smaller bright objects spiraling around. But there is no way to know for sure WHAT is causing the enormous brightness in the center of these galaxies. Kepler's laws: I am unsure about the validity of these laws, so I do not stand with or against them. I simply mentioned them in my argument because I know that the heliocentric model uses and relies on these laws. I want to give another point of argument: According to the heliocentric model, the Earth spins at 1,000 miles per hour at the equator. But while the Earth spins, there is no good scientific explanation to how the atmosphere and the contents thereof would spin in unison with the Earth. If the Earth was spinning at 1,000 miles per hour, the entire atmosphere would be appearing to be swiftly drafting in the same direction, and we would all be experiencing a MAJOR east wind. But now let's say that somehow the atmosphere did spin in unison with the Earth. If this were so, pilots would have to increase their speed when traveling east as apposed to when traveling west to compensate for the 1,000 mile per hour rotation of the Earth. Moreover, if the Earth were spinning, and we wanted to travel west, we could simply hover over the earth and wait as our destination heads toward us at 1,000 miles per hour. But we do not experience any of this! Instead, a pilot has to travel at the same speed, no matter which direction he goes, to get to his destination. I will also give the names of four experiments that have been done in attempt to prove that it was the Earth spinning, and not the aether, but instead proved that the Earth was stationary and the aether moving. They were then thrown under the rug so to speak, because they completely contradict the presently accepted orthodox views of our planetary system and astronomy in general. You can google them to learn about them. You can also watch this video which explains them. The explanations to each start at 7:00 into the video. 1. Michelson-Morley experiment 2. Michelson-Gale experiment 3. Airey's failure 4. Sagnac's experiment