Earth does not revolve around son.

Thanks to baggins for his argument.My argument in no way concedes that the sun revolves around the earth from “Geo” frame nor does it argue that the “Geo” frame is illogical. The “Geo” frame is the one we have, we do in fact observe the universe from a “fixed point on surface of earth”. My argument was not that the frame is illogical, it was that it is not logical or reasonable to conclude from that frame, that the sun revolves around the earth every 24 hours, as he contends. I did claim that his argument is “solely based on visual appearance” to which he concurs, but he then accuses me of inventing a “dubious definition of ‘logical frame of reference” insisting that I have claimed that it “must be convenient for my opponent to apply Newton’s law of gravitation and Einstein’s theory of relativity” for the frame of reference to be logical. This appears to be something of a “bait and switch” tactic in an effort to change the terms of the debate into an argument about whether the “Geo” frame is logical or not. The debate is about whether or not from this logical frame of reference one can reasonably conclude that the Sun revolves around the Earth every 24 hours, my argument was solely that you cannot reasonably reach Con’s conclusion from that frame of reference. It is indeed a logical frame of reference, in fact, it is the one from which we evolved logic and reason, and the one from which the universally accepted fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun was, and continues to be, reasoned. Con’s argument is therefore self refuting in the face of the fact that mankind actually concluded otherwise to his contention by applying reason. In support of this “bait and switch” argument, Con states that “It is more convenient to apply Newton’s law of gravitation and Einstein’s theory of relativity from solar frame”, claiming “solar frame is more convenient for some problems, Geo frame is more convenient for other problems”. With all due respect to my esteemed opponent, this is not only irrelevant, it is also a preposterous contention. A “Solar” frame would be a fixed point on the 'surface of the Sun where the temperature is approximately 5,800 Kelvin (> 10,000 degrees F), consequently, any observer located on this frame of reference would be instantly vaporized by the extreme heat, it is clearly not a frame that could reasonably be characterized as “convenient” for the reasoning of any problem. Con continues the “bait and switch” tactic of claiming that I am arguing that the “Geo” frame of reference itself is illogical in each of his numbered points as follows:1. Motion of stars:As I have already pointed out, his straw man “Solar” frame of reference is not a logical frame of reference from which anything can be studied, his “convenience” argument is irrelevant and preposterous, the study of relativity has always been from the “Geo” frame, and it can be reasonably argued that it never will be studied from a “Solar” frame. I in no way argued that the “Geo” frame is illogical, and this would be an irrelevant point to make anyway, under no conditions would it serve to support Con’s contention that we can reasonably conclude that the sun revolves around the earth every 24 hours. 2. Motion of planets:This appears to be nothing but more distraction from the actual debate, whether or not I find the resulting motion of the planets to be complicated isn’t at issue or related in any way to the debate.My argument was that he is basing his position on simple appearances, a point which he concedes, and that it is not reasonable to arrive at his conclusion from the “Geo” frame, even based on simple appearances because some planets give a simple appearance of changing their direction in space on a regular basis in direct contradiction to the laws of motion and gravity, so even simple appearances would be an inconsistent and illogical basis for his contention.3. Sunrise / Sunset:This argument is incoherent and doesn’t even support the “bait and switch” tactic. Sunrise and sunset are only simple observations from the “Geo” frame, the reasonable and logical conclusion to be drawn from these observations is that the Earth is rotating, not that the Sun is revolving around the Earth.4. Terrestrial Motion:I have not failed to realize the impact of this argument, I have only recognized that it is incoherent and the only impact it could have is on a bait and switch effort to distract from, and possibly even misrepresent, the true subject of the debate. It is actually Con’s "Terrestrial Motion" argument that is the red herring, I only responded to it to point out that it is flawed, illogical, and unreasonable. It’s certainly true that GPS systems provide routes and directions with respect to the Geo frame,but that’s all they need to do. So no, I do not want to say that “GPS systems do not use Geo frame”, especially since that isn’t what I argued. What I argued is that they base their calculationson signals that come from GPS Satellites placed into geosynchronous orbits that require valid laws of motion and gravity, which Con’s argument denies, and the Geo-positioning that those calculations derive from those signals are based on measurements of the finite speed of light and utilize Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to calculate position accurately, both of which are also denied by Con’s argument,Con concludes his argument by contending that “from Geo frame, sun revolves around earth” to which I’d like to believe that I have thoroughly refuted beyond any doubt that this is a reasonable conclusion one can draw from the Geo frame. He has added that “From solar frame earth revolves around sun (while spinning along its own axis)” claiming “Both statements are logical and reasonable” to which I believe it has been demonstrated that at best, this is nothing more than a “bait and switch” attempt to confuse and misrepresent the subject of the debate. I am forced to conclude that my opponent’s entire counter argument is a red herring because there is no opposed “Solar” frame of reference from which anything could be reasoned since an observer would instantly cease to exist. == Conclusion ==Con’s task was to present a frame of reference from which it could be reasonably argued that the sun revolves around the earth every 24 hours” and defend it. My opponent presented a frame of reference that does not meet the challenge for many reasons. The frame of reference he put forth just happens to be the same one from which mankind has reasonably concluded just the opposite, that it is the Earth that revolves around the Sun which itself refutes his contention. I have shown that his contention would require a denial of the known fact that the earth is rotating, along with Newton’s laws of motion and gravity, and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Clearly a conclusion based on such denial of our foundational laws of physics cannot be said to be a reasonable conclusion. Even Con’s attempt to make it all about simple appearances was shown to be inconsistent as some simple appearances also entail a breach in the physical laws of motion and gravity. Given these considerations, the Complete Resolution, which I hold the Pro position on, “There is no logical frame of reference from which you can reasonably argue that the sun revolves around the earth every 24 hours” has been demonstrated because, per the agreed upon terms of the debate, Con has failed to provide a frame of reference which refutes the resolution. The resolution is therefore affirmed.In the event that the title and voting instructions are still somewhat confusing, allow me to simplify, if you want to vote in a logical and reasonable manner, all you need to do is…VOTE PRO:)