What scientific experiments prove or disprove Earth's motion?

No experiment has ever directly proven that the Earth moves. Every test designed to detect that motion, whether translational or rotational, has yielded either a null result or data interpretable within a geocentric framework. From Michelson-Morley to Sagnac and Bradley's aberration, each observation is consistent with a stationary Earth surrounded by a moving ether or rotating heavens. The claim that the Earth's motion is empirically verified rests on assumption, not demonstration. The supposed "proofs" of heliocentrism depend on adopting heliocentric premises beforehand. (Galileo Was Wrong, Vol. 2, chs. 9-13; Geocentrism 101, ch. 9.) The quest to measure the Earth's motion began in earnest after Copernicus's hypothesis gained attention in the sixteenth century. If the Earth truly orbited the sun at 30 kilometers per second, then the light from the stars should exhibit annual parallax and stellar aberration easily measurable by telescopes. Yet no such parallax was detected until the nineteenth century, and even then its interpretation presupposed heliocentrism rather than proved it. As Mach and others noted, identical results would appear if the entire cosmos revolved around a fixed Earth. In relativity, both frames are dynamically equivalent. (GWW, Vol. 2, pp. 289-294.) The decisive experiments of the late nineteenth century were expected to settle the matter. Michelson-Morley (1887) attempted to measure the ether wind produced by the Earth's orbital motion. If the Earth moved through space, light should travel faster along its path of motion than across it. Instead, the result was null. The implication was either that the Earth was stationary or that the ether moved with it. Scientists chose the latter, inventing ad hoc mechanisms like the Lorentz contraction to preserve heliocentrism. Airy's 1871 water-filled telescope experiment reached the same conclusion. When the refractive medium slowed the starlight, Airy expected to tilt the telescope further if the Earth were moving. The starlight, however, entered as if the telescope were already properly aligned. Airy himself admitted that the heavens must be moving around the Earth rather than the reverse. (GWW, Vol. 2, pp. 308-314.) Foucault's pendulum (1851) and similar devices are often cited as proof of the Earth's rotation, yet these too are frame-dependent. A pendulum deflects due to relative motion between its plane and the surrounding masses. In a geocentric frame, that deflection arises naturally from the daily rotation of the universe about the fixed Earth. The mathematics is identical; the choice of reference frame alone distinguishes the interpretations. Sagnac's 1913 experiment confirmed the same by showing that light beams traversing a rotating platform experience fringe shifts proportional to the rotation of the surrounding medium, not necessarily the instrument itself. Einstein later incorporated the Sagnac effect into relativity without abandoning its consistency with a stationary Earth. Michelson-Gale (1925) further confirmed the presence of a rotation corresponding to a sidereal day, but it could not distinguish whether that rotation arose from the Earth or from the heavens. Einstein conceded that both descriptions were physically equivalent. The data, therefore, do not specify which body moves; the observer's chosen frame defines motion by convention. (Geocentrism 101, pp. 118-122.) Astrophysical phenomena reinforce the same ambiguity. The solar and galactic redshifts, the cosmic anisotropies, and the gravitational lensing patterns all admit a central reference point consistent with the Earth's rest. Modern cosmology, however, interprets them within an expanding-universe paradigm to maintain the Copernican principle, that the Earth must not be special. The evidence does not compel this reading; it simply reflects a philosophical preference. To date, no instrument has detected the 30 km/s orbital velocity or the 220 km/s galactic velocity attributed to the Earth. Every interferometer, gyroscope, and atomic-clock test returns null drift relative to the supposed ether or cosmic background. Even satellite gyroscopes like Gravity Probe B measure effects attributable to a rotating universe surrounding a stationary Earth as readily as to an Earth rotating in fixed space. The two frameworks are physically indistinguishable. In conclusion, all known experiments confirm only relative motion. The presupposition that the Earth must move arises from philosophical naturalism, not empirical necessity. The data can be fully and coherently explained in a geocentric framework without contradiction. The absence of any direct detection of the Earth's motion after four centuries of testing is itself powerful testimony that Scripture and sense perception were correct from the beginning: the Earth does not move.