The Earth orbits the Sun

1) Parallax I understand that this was my argument, and I also agreed in round 2 that it could be shown according to both models. However, I would like to state that bringing up arguments along the lines of how can we trust the data is irrelevant to this debate (If I misinterpreted this argument, please let me know). Yes, I got my information online, from sources that I have mentioned and given links to. I believe this data because parallax, in theory and according to the heliocentric model, follows geometric rules that can be proven on earth [1]. 2) Retrograde Motion Once again, I am believing Einstein and his theories simply because they have been put to the test here on Earth, in experiments that have been tested and repeated many times. Also, while things may move faster than light (for example, the universe could expand faster than light [2]) we would not be able to see this. Likewise, if a distant star was moving faster than the speed of light, it would be moving faster than the light it would be giving off, making it near impossible (if possible at all) to see. 3) Motion of Planets and Stellar Bodies I disagree that the conservation of angular momentum would prove planets to stay in a circular motion. It may prove that a planet will continue to spin on its axis, but it does nothing to prove the motion in a circle. This is similar to spinning a ball on a string, with the ball being a planet and the string representing gravitational pull. Cutting the string will cause the planet to move in a straight line; likewise, gravity is needed to keep these planets in orbit. 4) Time Lapse Photos Apologies for the misread. I believe I was reading too quickly, and failed to read it as Polaris, despite the capitalization. Still, I believe your argument is false. To bring back to an example that has been used several times, take the example of a ceiling fan. If Polaris is represented as the middle of the fan, the tips of the fan blades move faster than those closest to it. This is seen in the time lapse photos; the stars farthest away are seen to have a longer tail, meaning they are traveling (relatively) faster than those closest to the center, or Polaris [3]. In other words, those farther from Polaris have to travel a circumference much longer than those closer to Polaris in the same amount of time, meaning they would seem to be moving faster. 5) Moon's Orbit I agree that the Moon slows down as it moves to the apogee, to the perigee, and back again. But why does this mean that it doesn't have enough speed to orbit back to Earth at the apogee? I understand the concept, but there is no proof that you have shown explaining that it would not have enough speed to make it back to Earth. Planets (in theory), I believe no matter the model, would have elliptic orbits [4], meaning at some point there is an apogee and a perigee, yet they are able to continue in orbit. The same holds true for the Moon. 6) Axis in relation to Polaris Point is no longer refuted, I will move on. Simply stating that we can never be sure about the correctness of a distance is not an argument against this point. 7) Galaxies Again, this argument of not being positive about these facts arises. We are never going to positive on anything, but according to the science that we have now, it is the best approximation that we have. This is the reason it is a model, not a definite, absolute truth. It is possible stars are made of unknown substances, but according the science we have today, we are able to make the most accurate predictions we can. 8) Aether Across Earth's Surface In the next two paragraph's of my opponent's argument it seems as if he contradicts himself. In order for his argument against my example of a ball to be correct (in which he correctly states that tossing a ball outside a car would be more relevant to the aether argument), both the aether and the Earth would have to be stationary, correct? If this is not the claim, then why doesn't the Aether knock everything over as it moves across a stationary Earth (as stated in his paragraph explaining Airey's Failure). R9) Response to Question Answers Sun's Orbit: I understand that in theory this is correct, yet I am unsure how this can be. You call for a stationary Earth for this argument while there are other arguments that show it is quite possible the Earth is spinning (Polaris Time Lapse Photos) Center of Universe: I never stated there is or isn't a center of the Universe because my argument isn't based on it. Your's is. For your arguments to hold true, for a lot of them, you have the need to prove the center of the Universe is Earth. I don't because the Heliocentric Theory does not require the Earth to be at the center of the Universe. Aether: I understand now, between the description you gave and additional research, that the aether could very well exist and even move. This contradicts your previous statement with the movement of the Earth, especially the argument with the four-wheelers and the ball. Seasons: Thank you for the clarification of the seasons, and it's actually a fascinating explanation. I am also in agreement that the simplest explanation is not always correct. No argument against this though as it doesn't prove the geocentric model. Thank you for the explanation, nonetheless. Sources: [1] - http://lcogt.net... [2] - http://www.popsci.com... [3] - http://www.universetoday.com... [4] - http://www.as.utexas.edu...