The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! A proof against the Heliocentric Modelin Earth Science

Ampersand

@Erfisflat

As per Newtons laws, all objects in universe can accelerate if an appropriate force is applied to them. Why do you think moons are some magical exception to this universal constant?

Saying something is impossible while giving no reason that it is impossible as you have done is a child's argument. Do better.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

As per Newtons laws, all objects in universe can accelerate if an appropriate force is applied to them. Why do you think moons are some magical exception to this universal constant?

Saying something is impossible while giving no reason that it is impossible as you have done is a child's argument. Do better.

So your position, opposite of @EmeryPearson, is that a force is propelling and slowing the moon on it's course around the earth so that it appears to go along at the same speed.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

As per Newtons laws, all objects in universe can accelerate if an appropriate force is applied to them. Why do you think moons are some magical exception to this universal constant?

Saying something is impossible while giving no reason that it is impossible as you have done is a child's argument. Do better.

I think it's peculiar that Newton invented his own laws, after assuming the earth as a sphere.

someone234

@Erfisflat Laws which Einstein explicitly says make no sense at all at the quantum level.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

As per Newtons laws, all objects in universe can accelerate if an appropriate force is applied to them. Why do you think moons are some magical exception to this universal constant?

Saying something is impossible while giving no reason that it is impossible as you have done is a child's argument. Do better.

I think it's peculiar that Newton invented his own laws, after assuming the earth as a sphere.

In this post you make insinuations about Newton and his laws, offering no evidence (or even a point).

In your previous post you make a claim that it is impossible that the moon could accelerate but again offer no evidence to support this.

In the post before THAT one you made more baseless empty claims, again without evidence.

At this point it seems like you have nothing and are just posturing. Care to prove me wrong by making a post with even a hint of substance to it?

I tell you what, why don't you take me up on my challenge of drawing how you think 2 months of the moon's path would look relative to the sun? It should take 10 seconds to create if you don't mind about the curves being a bit wobbly from being drawn freestyle, a minute or two if you want it to look nice. I think there's a good change you can't do even that basic task and it will expose your ignorance and poor spatial reasoning.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

As per Newtons laws, all objects in universe can accelerate if an appropriate force is applied to them. Why do you think moons are some magical exception to this universal constant?

Saying something is impossible while giving no reason that it is impossible as you have done is a child's argument. Do better.

I think it's peculiar that Newton invented his own laws, after assuming the earth as a sphere.

In this post you make insinuations about Newton and his laws, offering no evidence (or even a point).

In your previous post you make a claim that it is impossible that the moon could accelerate but again offer no evidence to support this.

In the post before THAT one you made more baseless empty claims, again without evidence.

At this point it seems like you have nothing and are just posturing. Care to prove me wrong by making a post with even a hint of substance to it?

I tell you what, why don't you take me up on my challenge of drawing how you think 2 months of the moon's path would look relative to the sun? It should take 10 seconds to create if you don't mind about the curves being a bit wobbly from being drawn freestyle, a minute or two if you want it to look nice. I think there's a good change you can't do even that basic task and it will expose your ignorance and poor spatial reasoning.

Sorry, but the point has been made, a drawing will not change anything. Why should a rock allegedly orbiting the spherical earth care if it appear to go faster or slower, and what exactly is causing it to slow or accelerate at will?

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

As per Newtons laws, all objects in universe can accelerate if an appropriate force is applied to them. Why do you think moons are some magical exception to this universal constant?

Saying something is impossible while giving no reason that it is impossible as you have done is a child's argument. Do better.

I think it's peculiar that Newton invented his own laws, after assuming the earth as a sphere.

In this post you make insinuations about Newton and his laws, offering no evidence (or even a point).

In your previous post you make a claim that it is impossible that the moon could accelerate but again offer no evidence to support this.

In the post before THAT one you made more baseless empty claims, again without evidence.

At this point it seems like you have nothing and are just posturing. Care to prove me wrong by making a post with even a hint of substance to it?

I tell you what, why don't you take me up on my challenge of drawing how you think 2 months of the moon's path would look relative to the sun? It should take 10 seconds to create if you don't mind about the curves being a bit wobbly from being drawn freestyle, a minute or two if you want it to look nice. I think there's a good change you can't do even that basic task and it will expose your ignorance and poor spatial reasoning.

Sorry, but the point has been made, a drawing will not change anything. Why should a rock allegedly orbiting the spherical earth care if it appear to go faster or slower, and what exactly is causing it to slow or accelerate at will?

If by point you mean you've made a lot of baseless claims that have no evidenciary worth, yeah I agree. That's kind of the whole point of my last spot analysing how your posts are completely lacking in content.

You made this thread saying you have proof but now you're just asking questions and don't seem to know anything. Do you have proof as you claimed in the OP or do you not understand basic physics? I'll debate you if you actually put forward an argument but I don't want to educate you if you don't know anything.

someone234

Ampersand said:

 I'll debate you if you actually put forward an argument but I don't want to educate you if you don't know anything.

Ad hominem.

A person who doesn't know anything is the best person to educate.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

As per Newtons laws, all objects in universe can accelerate if an appropriate force is applied to them. Why do you think moons are some magical exception to this universal constant?

Saying something is impossible while giving no reason that it is impossible as you have done is a child's argument. Do better.

I think it's peculiar that Newton invented his own laws, after assuming the earth as a sphere.

In this post you make insinuations about Newton and his laws, offering no evidence (or even a point).

In your previous post you make a claim that it is impossible that the moon could accelerate but again offer no evidence to support this.

In the post before THAT one you made more baseless empty claims, again without evidence.

At this point it seems like you have nothing and are just posturing. Care to prove me wrong by making a post with even a hint of substance to it?

I tell you what, why don't you take me up on my challenge of drawing how you think 2 months of the moon's path would look relative to the sun? It should take 10 seconds to create if you don't mind about the curves being a bit wobbly from being drawn freestyle, a minute or two if you want it to look nice. I think there's a good change you can't do even that basic task and it will expose your ignorance and poor spatial reasoning.

Sorry, but the point has been made, a drawing will not change anything. Why should a rock allegedly orbiting the spherical earth care if it appear to go faster or slower, and what exactly is causing it to slow or accelerate at will?

If by point you mean you've made a lot of baseless claims that have no evidenciary worth, yeah I agree. That's kind of the whole point of my last spot analysing how your posts are completely lacking in content.

You made this thread saying you have proof but now you're just asking questions and don't seem to know anything. Do you have proof as you claimed in the OP or do you not understand basic physics? I'll debate you if you actually put forward an argument but I don't want to educate you if you don't know anything.

This is the beauty in a logical debate. I've pointed out a logical flaw in the mainstream model, and now, not only have I caused two heliocentric model proponents to contradict themselves, I've raised a question that has only been logically answered by either saying the earth's motion must be ignored (or the earth must be at rest) or the moon can accelerate and descelerate at will. Yet you say you dont want to "educate me".

Nope

Erfisflat
The moon only accelerates in a circle way around the earth, sun and galaxy (may be in another way that we don't know of) and it does not do it at will. It's acceleration is predictable and happens due to gravity. The earths motion does not have to be ignored. It can be ignored because velocity is relative and the suns gravitational force is also constant.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

As per Newtons laws, all objects in universe can accelerate if an appropriate force is applied to them. Why do you think moons are some magical exception to this universal constant?

Saying something is impossible while giving no reason that it is impossible as you have done is a child's argument. Do better.

I think it's peculiar that Newton invented his own laws, after assuming the earth as a sphere.

In this post you make insinuations about Newton and his laws, offering no evidence (or even a point).

In your previous post you make a claim that it is impossible that the moon could accelerate but again offer no evidence to support this.

In the post before THAT one you made more baseless empty claims, again without evidence.

At this point it seems like you have nothing and are just posturing. Care to prove me wrong by making a post with even a hint of substance to it?

I tell you what, why don't you take me up on my challenge of drawing how you think 2 months of the moon's path would look relative to the sun? It should take 10 seconds to create if you don't mind about the curves being a bit wobbly from being drawn freestyle, a minute or two if you want it to look nice. I think there's a good change you can't do even that basic task and it will expose your ignorance and poor spatial reasoning.

Sorry, but the point has been made, a drawing will not change anything. Why should a rock allegedly orbiting the spherical earth care if it appear to go faster or slower, and what exactly is causing it to slow or accelerate at will?

If by point you mean you've made a lot of baseless claims that have no evidenciary worth, yeah I agree. That's kind of the whole point of my last spot analysing how your posts are completely lacking in content.

You made this thread saying you have proof but now you're just asking questions and don't seem to know anything. Do you have proof as you claimed in the OP or do you not understand basic physics? I'll debate you if you actually put forward an argument but I don't want to educate you if you don't know anything.

This is the beauty in a logical debate. I've pointed out a logical flaw in the mainstream model, and now, not only have I caused two heliocentric model proponents to contradict themselves, I've raised a question that has only been logically answered by either saying the earth's motion must be ignored (or the earth must be at rest) or the moon can accelerate and descelerate at will. Yet you say you dont want to "educate me".

Yet another empty post. Instead of actually providing any evidence or reasoning that "the earth's motion must be ignored (or the earth must be at rest)" or "the moon can accelerate and descelerate at will" are the only logical outcomes, you just claim this is the case based on absolutely no evidence.

Come on, I'm willing to debate on this - all you have to do is meet the most basic level of argument expected of a debate participant; actually providing evidence to back up your claims rather than just assuming you're right because you say so. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim so until you actually provide proof that any of your claims are relevant, there is nothing for me to respond to.

Until you progress beyond the level of a childish claim e.g. essentially "I'm right because I say so" there isn't actually anything for me to respond to because your argument will always be inherently flawed and meaningless.

someone234

Ampersand said:

Yet another empty post. Instead of actually providing any evidence or reasoning that "the earth's motion must be ignored (or the earth must be at rest)" or "the moon can accelerate and descelerate at will" are the only logical outcomes, you just claim this is the case based on absolutely no evidence.

Come on, I'm willing to debate on this - all you have to do is meet the most basic level of argument expected of a debate participant; actually providing evidence to back up your claims rather than just assuming you're right because you say so. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim so until you actually provide proof that any of your claims are relevant, there is nothing for me to respond to.

Until you progress beyond the level of a childish claim e.g. essentially "I'm right because I say so" there isn't actually anything for me to respond to because your argument will always be inherently flawed and meaningless.

Thinking you're a real G, get pimpslapped tf out of here with that whiny sh**.

Get an argument or GET OUT.

someone234

thank you Debra, accurate as always.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

As per Newtons laws, all objects in universe can accelerate if an appropriate force is applied to them. Why do you think moons are some magical exception to this universal constant?

Saying something is impossible while giving no reason that it is impossible as you have done is a child's argument. Do better.

I think it's peculiar that Newton invented his own laws, after assuming the earth as a sphere.

In this post you make insinuations about Newton and his laws, offering no evidence (or even a point).

In your previous post you make a claim that it is impossible that the moon could accelerate but again offer no evidence to support this.

In the post before THAT one you made more baseless empty claims, again without evidence.

At this point it seems like you have nothing and are just posturing. Care to prove me wrong by making a post with even a hint of substance to it?

I tell you what, why don't you take me up on my challenge of drawing how you think 2 months of the moon's path would look relative to the sun? It should take 10 seconds to create if you don't mind about the curves being a bit wobbly from being drawn freestyle, a minute or two if you want it to look nice. I think there's a good change you can't do even that basic task and it will expose your ignorance and poor spatial reasoning.

Sorry, but the point has been made, a drawing will not change anything. Why should a rock allegedly orbiting the spherical earth care if it appear to go faster or slower, and what exactly is causing it to slow or accelerate at will?

If by point you mean you've made a lot of baseless claims that have no evidenciary worth, yeah I agree. That's kind of the whole point of my last spot analysing how your posts are completely lacking in content.

You made this thread saying you have proof but now you're just asking questions and don't seem to know anything. Do you have proof as you claimed in the OP or do you not understand basic physics? I'll debate you if you actually put forward an argument but I don't want to educate you if you don't know anything.

This is the beauty in a logical debate. I've pointed out a logical flaw in the mainstream model, and now, not only have I caused two heliocentric model proponents to contradict themselves, I've raised a question that has only been logically answered by either saying the earth's motion must be ignored (or the earth must be at rest) or the moon can accelerate and descelerate at will. Yet you say you dont want to "educate me".

Yet another empty post. Instead of actually providing any evidence or reasoning that "the earth's motion must be ignored (or the earth must be at rest)" or "the moon can accelerate and descelerate at will" are the only logical outcomes, you just claim this is the case based on absolutely no evidence.

Come on, I'm willing to debate on this - all you have to do is meet the most basic level of argument expected of a debate participant; actually providing evidence to back up your claims rather than just assuming you're right because you say so. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim so until you actually provide proof that any of your claims are relevant, there is nothing for me to respond to.

Until you progress beyond the level of a childish claim e.g. essentially "I'm right because I say so" there isn't actually anything for me to respond to because your argument will always be inherently flawed and meaningless.

Your post is 99% hot air and opinion. The choices were the ones given to me by yourself and another proponent. I've only asked a valid question and given a real world observation as evidence for the basis of that question. For you to assert that my posts and logic amount to "I'm right because I say so" is an asinine statement, and has no factual basis.