:-)
Wildly inaccurate.
Zit was clearly talking about the fact that the "all the matter in the rest of the universe" point has nothing to do with the concept of Heliocentrism, which is what I'm saying too.
"Heliocentrists" know that to be a perfect equation, you'd need to account for every molecule in the universe.
They also know that once you've done this, the mass of the Sun is the central dominant issue in determining the behavior of bodies in this solar system.
Which there is ample evidence for . . . as you seem intent on forgetting to reply to!
Zit was making the claim and I was clearly correcting the error of his claim and showing 'all the matter in the rest of the universe' has everything to do with geocentrism and that heliocentrists always ignore it.
You can't rationally claim that the curvature from universal gravitation is too small and then ignore the fact that the universal displacement is equally small. That is a demonstration of incredibly poor critical thinking skills.
The heliocentric choice to ignore the effect of the rest of the universe is a philosophical choice, not one driven by science.
"They also know that once you've done this, the mass of the Sun is the central dominant issue in determining the behavior of bodies in this solar system."
Only true if you make a philosophical choice unsupported by science that you can ignore the rest of the universe. Heliocentrists always do this because it's the only their model can work and geocentrists never do because there is no scientific reason to do so.
"Which there is ample evidence for . . . as you seem intent on forgetting to reply to!"
Not forgetting at all. It must be evidence uniquely supporting one model over the other before it has any relevance. This is something you do not have and seem intent on forgetting to reply to.