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

Thank you for the timely response. Pro has a total of seven contentions, and only two are directly observable. Pro uses opinions that are based on theory and phrases them as; "this fact". He claims "impossibility" in "two ways" then proceeds to state two reasons that are only "theoretically" correct. I would like to remind Pro where the definition of Theory stands- Theory - A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be . http://www.merriam-webster.com... A theory is an idea. Isaac Asimov once called a theory an "Assumption" and "something accepted without proof" and stated that "it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false". 1)Pro says; "The most obvious evidence we have that the Earth is moving is the fact that each and every day, the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west. " I agree with Pro on this factual statement. An Orb of light which we call "The Sun" follows an arched path through our sky just as he says. Lets think about "why" It is accepted as evidence. That rabbit hole isn't very deep. Pro believes* the popular "theory". That is not "evidence" of the earth moving. It only relates well to a theory. Maybe the Sun is orbiting in unison with a binary star that is further away. Possibly a brown dwarf. .. that would explain Venus's orbital direction. It would also offset your theoretical gravitational pull. 2) Pro says; "Seasons are another obvious example of the Earth's movement. " Temperature change can be for a number of reasons. The earths core can easily be the cause of the seasons. The hypothetical brown dwarf binary star that i proposed in the last answer can explain axial tilt. Example; The theoretical gravitational pull that you propose can be pulling the earth towards both stars The Sun & The Bun (Brown Sun). 3) Pro says; "The number of satellites currently in Earth orbit has recorded the Earth moving innumerable times. " Aliens blew up the white house. Will Smith saved the world. Patrick Stewart fly's spacecraft at warp speed. If you can show me video that is as convincing as the ones I have to support my claims, I will happily dispute this point. 4) Pro says; "The Coriolis effect is basically an effect caused by Earth's movement" I am already very aware of the Coriolis Effect. The experiment was conducted by shooting a canon ball in different directions (I always wondered how much thought went in to that). The only thing Coriolis effect proves; is that Coriolis Force moves things, it is relative to observable earth conditions and the result changes under water. 5) This is one of your best contentions. To further embrace your point, I would like focus on the light years aspect. There is about 1 star for every 280 cubic light years. Most of the stars we see in our night sky are over 500 light years away. That means the light takes 500 years to reach us. Maybe the stars aren't there anymore? . http://www.edurite.com... We also have obstructions in our skies. For example maybe our slow rotating 1-sided Moon paired with our atmosphere and dark matter act as a smoke and mirror magic trick would. Who's to say? 6) I like the theory of gravity. It is verrry entertaining. It applies so well to things on THIS PLANET. I must Inform you that the old Sir Newton may have some worthy opposition. I would like to quote an article I found at; . http://pureinsight.org... Quote ;"Professor Eric Verlinde, age 48, a respected string theorist and a professor of physics at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Amsterdam, proposed a new theory of gravity as reported by the New York Times on July 12, 2010. He argued in a recent paper, entitled "On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton" that gravity is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, his contention is that gravity is an illusion that has caused continued turmoil among physicists, or at least among those who profess to understand it. " He later went on to say; "For me, gravity doesn't exist," said Dr. Verlinde. It's not that he won't fall to the ground, but Dr. Verlinde, along with some other physicists, thinks that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic from which gravity "emerges," the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of individual investors or how elasticity emerges from the mechanics of atoms. " Gravity is widely disputed, Dr. Verlinde is not the only Physicist with a conflicting view. If the physicists of today succeed in changing the accepted norm, each of the contentions you have made will be re-written. 7) The Moon was a Rogue planet says Pro. That is yet another theory. Since we are on the subject of theories. The most widely *accepted theory (which means nothing) states that the Earth was forming from many rocks and chunks of icy material and came into contact with space debris that chipped off an actual piece of Earth, which later became the Moon. . http://www.scholastic.com... Although this has nothing to do with the Earth being in constant motion, I believe it should stand as proof AGAINST the reliability of theories. The Moon in actuality (not theory) Orbits the Earth, It has no visible rotation. It coincidentally rotates every 29.5 days, which by some grace of the flying spaghetti monster (or god if you prefer that moniker) never reveals its other side to us. . http://starryskies.com... I believe Pros, Moon contention strengthens the Con perspective and this point should go to me. If we use a geocentric view of the world and dispose of the idea that what we see in the sky at night is stars and instead think of it as the result of our sun shining on other planets and ascribe an entirely new set of rules and mathematics to describe it, who can say its wrong? People will say that its wrong, because for the last 300 years everything has been built off of a few core concepts. I hate to see things treated as concrete. In the words of Robert Anton Wilson; "Belief is the death of creativity".