"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.
Don't make the mistake of confusing models with reality. My point was that you cannot physically distinguish between the models, not that that models aren't different.
And MM didn't *show* that the speed of light was constant. The null result was 'interpreted' to mean that the speed of light was the same in all reference frames. It could also be interpreted as showing that the earth is not moving. The null result was entirely unexpected.
The motion of the earth is assumed. Calculating something does not mean that it represents reality. You assume that you have a moving center of mass. The evidence to support it is distinctly missing.
Airey's failure is another failure to find evidence that the earth is moving and Einsteins's comment about the different CS for heliocentrism and geocentrism being equivalent is accurate as stated.
Ernst Mach also showed that planetary orbit arguments are invalid because the laws geometry would have to be broken for their to be an essential difference between geocentrism and heliocentrism.
The evidence for heliocentrism just isn't there. It is a belief, not a fact.