Earth does not revolve around son.

To be successful my opponent must provide a “logical” frame of reference from which one can “reasonably” conclude that the Sun revolves around the Earth every 24 hours. He has presented the “Geo” frame of reference, defined as a fixed point on surface of Earth, and argues that from this frame, it can reasonably be concluded that the Sun rotates around Earth every ~24 hours. I will contend that the “Geo” frame of reference is not a logical frame of reference from which you can draw the required conclusion, apparently Con’s contention is based solely on visual appearance but in order to arrive at the conclusion based solely on appearance one must reject the known fact that the earth is rotating around an axis, which is not logical or reasonable. Con’s argument also entails a violation of the physical laws of gravity which renders his primary contention of the rotation of the Sun around the Earth impossible. The Sun is approximately ninety three million miles away from the earth, multiplying this distance by Pi to arrive at the distance the Sun must travel in an orbit around the Earth every 24 hours is around 292 million miles. To hold the sun in an orbit around the Earth at such speed, the physical laws of gravity would require the Earth to have a mass so high that it would collapse into a black hole, and yet, it is known that the mass of the Sun is about 332,946 times the mass of the Earth. Con’s contention therefore is not logical or reasonable because it requires a dramatic violation of the physical laws of gravity. In further support of his contention Con presents four various types of motion for discussion with associated arguments around each, I will address them in the order presented. 1. Motion of stars: Con argues that from the proposed “Geo” frame of reference, all stars move around earth once every ~24 hours.According to current scientific theory, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. The closest visible star is Alpha Centauri, around 4.2 light years away; the farthest visible stars are in the Andromeda galaxy, about 2.5 million light years away. Applying Pi to these distances would give the approximate distance being traveled every twenty four hours if Con’s contention were true. Consequently, all of the visible stars would be breaking a fundamental law of physics by traveling much faster than the speed of light, ranging from Alpha Centauri which would be traveling over five thousand times the speed of light, and the stars in the Andromeda Galaxy, traveling close to three billion times the speed of light. It is not logical or reasonable to presume such an astounding violation of the laws of physics. 2. Motion of planets: Con argues that from the "Geo" frame, the motion of planets is a superimposition of a circular motion and an elliptical motion of planets and that the application of Newton’s law of gravitation would be inconvenienced but not illogical or unreasonable. On the contrary, the motion of the planets renders Con’s contention about appearances inconsistent and therefore illogical. While the sun would indeed “appear” to be revolving around the earth in an east to west direction, as would the planets, on a periodic basis several planets would appear to reverse the direction of their revolution to move from west to east, and after a time, reverse again to continue in their original east to west direction. From Con’s frame of reference this retrograde motion of the planets would entail a breach in the physical laws of motion and gravity, rendering Con’s conclusion based on appearances illogical and unreasonable. 3. Sunrise and Sunset: Con argues that sunrise and sunset assume the “Geo” frame and there is no sunrise and sunset in a “Solar” frame. I fail to see the relevance of this, the task for Con is to present a logical frame of reference from which you can reasonably conclude that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Comparing and contrasting two frames of reference in terms of Sunrise and Sunset does nothing to make his case. On the contrary, the reasonable conclusion from the existence of a sunrise and sunset is that the earth rotates, not that the sun revolves around the earth. In fact, from a fixed point on the East Coast of the US the sun appears to emerge from the Atlantic Ocean at sunrise, and on the West Coast it appears to submerge into the Pacific Ocean at sunset, but for obvious reasons, this is not a logical conclusion to draw from appearances either. 4. Terrestrial motion: Con argues that the “Geo” frame is better for studying our motion on the surface of earth, and that terrestrial motion looks bizarre from the “Solar” frame, he also says all forms of transportation use the “Geo” frame. Again, I do not see the relevance to the task at hand for Con. This appears to be a diversion that does nothing to make his case. While it’s completely extrinsic to the debate, I would in fact argue that Con is wrong in this respect anyway. Transportation relies on the “solar” frame for proper navigation and proper functioning of critical technologies like GPS Positioning; Con’s proposed “Geo” frame would wreak havoc on the world of transportation. == Conclusion ==From Con’s proposed “Geo” frame of reference, it is not reasonable to conclude that the sun revolves around the earth because one must deny the rotation of the Earth, appearances are inconsistent with the conclusion, Newton’s mechanical laws of motion and gravity are dramatically violated, and most of the universe must be travelling billions of times faster than the speed of light in a vacuum in violation of Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity. A conclusion that is inconsistent with appearances and observations while dramatically violating sciences most foundational physical laws cannot be said to be logical or reasonable conclusion.Con’s argument has been refuted.