You do realize that Michelson-Morley was the experiment that was *desinged* to detect that *assumed* motion of the earth around the sun. You do realize that it found no motion. This is why heliocentric and geocentric models are consistent CS under GR. They have to be because Einstein assumed that the earth was moving and had to develop a theory that was consistent with the evidence that it was not.
You do realize that telescopes must be angled slightly so that starlight focuses properly? This angle is assumed to be the result of the earth's motion, yet if you fill the telescope with water (which slows the speed of light and would require an increase in the angle of the telescope) that no increase in angle is required? This is known as Airey's failure.
You do realize that the only arguments against geocentrism are emotional?
"That it is impossible to physically distinguish between geocentric and heliocentric models is the point of the work of Mach, Einstein and Hoyle and recognized by their published statements."
I have shown you several times that there are differences in the models.
"You do realize that Michelson-Morley was the experiment that was *desinged* to detect that *assumed* motion of the earth around the sun. You do realize that it found no motion."
Michelson-Morley's experiment just showed that the speed of light is constant. So the original intension had to fail.
The motion of the earth around the sun is not "*assumed*". You can calculate within an non-inertial coordinate system what ever you want but you got a moving center of mass to fix the earth in a sun-earth system. As I said before then you have to alter your physical laws. Einstein was well aware of this fact despite of you.
"This angle is assumed to be the result of the earth's motion, yet if you fill the telescope with water (which slows the speed of light and would require an increase in the angle of the telescope) that no increase in angle is required?"
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/geocexpl.htm
This is real BS you know? To aim at one point you need no telescope at all! The light will then always hit vertically. Then you won't have any refraction effect.
You really have a atmospheric refraction that change star positions the more you move to the horizon.
If you measure horizontal and after that you fill your telescope up with water the star has moved to zenith and the effect is gone.
"This is known as Airey's failure."
(Do you want to know what Sagnac's failure is?)
"You do realize that the only arguments against geocentrism are emotional?"
Your arguments are strict rational like the ones above?
You still lack to understand the difference between inertial and non-inertial systems. That's why you misinterpreted Einstein's comment.