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

Im a little saddened that this debate is going to boil down to the con trying to dismiss universal facts as wild theories and offer no solid evidence for his own arguments... That being said I will still defend my arguments1) Con's explanation for why the sun orbits around the Earth = There is an invisible brown dwarf somewhere in the solar system that we just somehow missed but the Con knows exists, and this tiny fragment of a star manages to have a larger gravitational force than the sun that can make it move, but not the Earth. The Sun is the center of our solar system due to its immense mass (99.8% of all mass in the solar system is the sun) so for anything to cause the Sun to orbit around it would have to be so massive it would be impossible to miss. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...http://www.globio.org...http://science.nationalgeographic.com...http://www.english-online.at...The Con thinks that somehow there is another star within our solar system that causes the sun to revolve around the Earth yet at the same time leaves the Earth perfectly still and has offered no evidence that this insane idea of his is true. On another note if something is powerful enough to cause the Sun to move, then how come it cant cause the Earth to move as well? Gravity isnt selective Con...2) Con's explanation for why the Earth has seasons = The earths core can easily be the cause of the seasons.I offer the Con to provide any actual evidence, sorces, or logic that could explain how The Earth's core could cause the crust to experience seasons. Allow me to show evidence that Earth's tilt and orientation to the sun is the cause for seasons. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...https://pantherfile.uwm.edu...http://www.astronomy.org...It is an accepted fact that the Earth is tilted, the Con even admits this. However he keeps hiding behind his imaginary invisible sun theory rather than provide actual proof3) Con's explanation for why satellites show the Earth is moving = mass conspiracyThe Con turns to Hollywood to try to claim that since movie producers use satellite images for special effects that this somehow dismisses satellites as reliable evidence. Here are sources showing how satellites have observed Earth's rotation.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...The videos posted to the top left show how every day cameras from the International space station along with many other satellites observe Earth's movement each and every hour. I invite the Con to use videos of satellite scenes from movies, Ill provide the filming locations where the movies were shot to show that they are faked...And by the way Con, would you care to explain why Space agencies around the world would all intentionally create footage showing the Earth is moving if it actually isnt? I doubt even you could think of something that creative4) The Con's explanation for why the Coriolis effects happens: So whatMy argument still stands since the concept behind the experiment still acts as evidence that the Earth is in motion5) The Con's explanation for why the stars are too far away to revolve around the Earth: Magic....Its quite possible that those stars arent there anymore, and that there are planetary obstructions. However this does not dismiss the case entirely because each and every night when we look up we can spot constellations that are in the exact same position and shape that they were the night before, and for that to happen those distant stars would have to travel at impossibly high speeds to maintain such patterns. The Con though flat out ignores this -______-6) The Con's explanation for why the Sun hasnt sucked the Earth to its death through gravity: Gravity is a massive lieThe Con quotes one physicist as his entire argument for why gravitational pull by the sun hasnt pulled the Earth to its death, however the Con does admit in his own source that there is an attraction and that it does exist here on Earth. "It's not that he won't fall to the ground" <- from the source"It applies so well to things on THIS PLANET" <- from the ConBut we have had men step on the moon, and I mean literally step on the moon since the gravitational pull of the moon keeps them from drifitng into space. We have rovers on Mars that stay on Mars because of Mars's gravitational pull. There is gravity on every planet that has a moon because if there wasnt gravity on those planets then they wouldnt have moons. And lastly the Sun has gravity since I have shown that all planets orbit the Sun. If the Sun didnt have gravity every last thing in the Solar system would have drifted off into the depths of space long ago. But that hasnt happened since the Sun's gravity, or whatever the Con wants to call it, still has an effect on planets in the solar system. So my argument still stands that if the Earth were standing still then gravitational forces would still have pulled the Earth to its fiery death. It could be argued that we dont know for sure the mechanics behind gravity, but the Con concedes that there are forces and interactions at play and those forces still apply to the planets and the stars and he knows it. 7) Con's explanation for why the moon's collision with the Earth did not cause it to move: Im a liarCon believes the Moon was once a part of the Earth and just suddenly "broke off" by using wordplay to twist an article to his favor. Here are my sources of evidence supporting a long ago impact between the Earth and the Moonhttp://articles.cnn.com...http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...http://arxiv.org...http://www.esa.int...http://www.nhm.ac.uk...^ that one explains it the fastest for why the impact theory is more accepted than the fission theory"which by some grace of the flying spaghetti monster (or god if you prefer that moniker) never reveals its other side to us." - Insulting the views of me and the voters isnt going to help you Con..."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?"Anyone can say its wrong since your flat out ignoring the biggest piece of evidence that shows that theory is impossible, the stars in the sky at night...The Con's entire strategy in this debate is that all of the facts I presented are just theories, and then he tries to match theories with stupider theories to try to fuse fact and fiction to try to win. If thats what its going to come down to then im very disappointed with how seriously the Con is taking this debate, but if that is the case then I ask voters to judge the arguments based on whose theories are more logical, convincing, and actually based on facts....