Now that the semantics have been dealt with will you kindly state whether you deny that the Earth goes around the sun (using whatever term you choose) has been scientifically proven?
My post about revolving was tongue in cheek. I hope your insistence on proof from science is in a similar spirit.
I will. In the sense of "proven" meaning demonstrated as necessarily true by rigorous logical argument -- or in the sense of "proven" meaning that, by any means, any possible contradictory claims have been presumptively eliminated -- heliocentrism is NOT "proven". It is a theory. The purpose of a theory is to explain facts. Heliocentrism explains facts, that is: the specific polar coordinates, wrt the earth, of the sun and the other planets at specific times.
It is logically possible that other theories might explain the same facts, and explain them better. Indeed it is an historical fact that other theories HAVE at times explained these facts and explained them better, even though heliocentrism prevailed in the end.
Even though (nearly) everyone thinks that heliocentrism actually IS true, and will continue to prevail, and will not be replaced by any substantively divergent theory, this does not change its status as a theory.