The Earth is not standing still, it is in constant motion

- 1 - The Brown Dwarf. http://en.wikipedia.org...(hypothetical_planet)So far the dwarf planet is only rumored to exist, and if it does exist it is expected to be only slightly larger than Jupiter. Now it is possible for a planet to be suspended between two stars (if this brown dwarf actually does exist) but there are two problems with this theory, the first is that this planet is so far away that it couldnt possibly have a large gravitational pull on the Earth or even the Sun for that matter. Heck Jupiter right now has no gravitational pull on Earth, so how could another body only slightly larger but terribly farther away do much better? The second is that this does not account for why the Sun allegedly rotates around the Earth while the Earth remains still. If the Sun rotates around this possibly non existent conveniently invisible brown dwarf then how come the Earth doesnt? You claim that its possible that if the Sun and this other star were perfectly still then the planets could be suspended between them, but if the Sun is moving than that contradicts any reason why the Earth would be standing still too since now it is being pulled on by two stars thousands of times larger than Earth is - 2 - The Con's explanation for why seasons occurThe Con's reasons of why seasons occur is that Earthquakes and Volcanic eruptions cause seasons.... But we have earthquakes and volcanic eruptions year round, it doesnt all happen during one season then just stop during another. These are constantly occurring phenomena that couldnt control seasons on Earth since they happen all the time and arent synchronized with seasonal change which has been constant for millions of years now. - 3 - The Con's reasoning towards satellites recording the Earth's movement.The Con only says how the Earth actually isnt round and that you cant see the real time movement of the Earth. The Con though misses the point about how over time (about a day) The Earth is seen moving in a constant pattern around its axis. Rather than offer another wild explanation for why thousands of satellites show the Earth's movement, he just makes fun of my videos... - 4 - The Coriolis effectThe Coriolis effect is an observation that over long distances moving objects deflect from their intended path because while is (lets say a cannonball) is streaking through the air the Earth rotates underneath it slowly so that when the cannonball does land, its skewed its trajectory to where it should have landed had the Earth been standing still. So how could projectiles shot over long distances from north to south or south to north always skew off course slightly towards the West everytime even when the wind is pushing against it? The Earth's rotation underneath the projectile is the easiest and most logical explanation for why this happens. - 5 - The movement of the Stars" I didn't ignore this contention Pro"Then how come you didnt offer any explanation for why the stars somehow illuminate the sky at night each and every night in the same position as before and claim the only reason this happens is because its an optical illusion..... Ive already argued that the stars cannot travel fast enough to orbit around the Earth and you are sticking your head in the ground and ignoring this, you even claim the stars dont exist yet we've studied them and found out that they are out there... - 6 - The gravitational forces the Sun and Moon have on the Earth"I believe NOTHING. If the Sun didn't have gravity and gravity was only central to the actual body of mass, everything would not float away"Id ask you to provide science or logic or sense to argue why objects would continue orbiting other objects if none of them had any force or attraction to them at all, but since you dont believe in science I wont ask..."I don't appreciate Pro saying "I admit" something, resorting to word twisting won't win this for you Pro."You claimed Gravity didnt exist but your own source says only states how the true mechanics are not entirely understood but that there are forces still at play. Your own source says how gravity still exists and you have several times claimed that an invisible brown dwarf somehow pulls the sun around the Earth. If you didnt actually admit there are forces between stars and planets then fine, my bad. But claiming there are no forces at all and then claiming that this invisible star is why the sun orbits the Earth only makes you look kind of stupid.... - 7 - The Moon's impact with the EarthThe Con claimed that the Moon was once a aprt of the Earth and diffused was the msot accepted theory to the origin of the moon, I showed how that was a lie and not true" The fact still stands, you have never seen the other side of the moon with your own two eyes. "Thats because the Moon rotates with one side always facing the Earth meaning that as the moon moves around the Earth once every 30 days it also revolves around its axis once every 30 days. This debate is whether or not the Earth is moving or standing still, the Con's strategy is to try to offer other theories to explain why the Earth doesnt move yet we see effects of why it should, let me recap all the argumentsWhy does the Earth have days?Pro - The Earth spins on its axis causing parts of the Earth to enter constant periods of days and nightCon - A distant invisible star flings the Sun around the Earth while somehow not having any force on the Earthwhich sounds more probable and is backed by evidence?Why does the Earth have seasons?Pro - The Earth's tilt on its axis as it orbits the sun causes different hemispheres to be exposed to the Earth at different times of the yearCon - Volcanic eruptions and Earthquakes control seasons even though they happen all the time and seasons change at a regular intervalwhich sounds more probable and is backed by evidence?Why do satellites show the Earth is moving?Pro - Satellites have very varying orbits around the Earth and they all show the Earth rotating about its axle in the same direction every timeCon - Satellites cannot be trustedwhich sounds more probable and is backed by evidence?Why does the Coriolis effect occur?Pro - Objects that travel over the Earth for long distances will be in the air while the Earth rotates beneath it, causing its final impact point to skew to the west from its projected point of impact every time which is due to Earth's movementCon - The Coriolis effect means nothing and should be ignoredwhich sounds more probable and is backed by evidence? Why do the stars rotate across the sky at night?Pro - The Earth rotates causing these stars to be seen at night since its physically impossible for those stars to travel around the Earth since nothing could travel that fastCon - The Stars are an optical illusion / magic and might not even existwhich sounds more probable and is backed by evidence?Why doesnt the Earth get sucked into the Sun from gravity if the Earth is standing still?Pro - The Earth's inertia and movement around the Sun accounts for why it has not meet its fiery death. Con - Gravity might not exist and if it does a distant very small star somehow has the same gravitational pull on the Earth as the much closer and much larger sun does, even though I already have claimed that this distant star pulls on the Sun and conveniently does not effect the Earthwhich sounds more probable and is backed by evidence?Could the Moon's collision with the Earth have caused the Earth to move?Pro - Yes, the Moon impacted the Earth long ago and it was a glancing blow which gave the Earth movement since there is nothing to cause the Earth to not move after being hit by a planet. Con - No, the Moon was once part of the Earth and the two just happened to diffuse over time according to an article I found online that claims this is what happened even though the impact theory is backed by evidence and is accepted by scientists whose work I dont even believe inwhich sounds more probable and is backed by evidence?