Your objection isn't making any sense to me. All I was describing is what the heliocentric model does and does not claim to answer. Its purpose is to provide an explanation of the planets' motions in the sky, and that it does admirably. It states that the earth moves around the sun, and that that motion is what causes the planets to appear to move backwards at times. As a bonus, it also explains (with Kepler's modifications) that its motion is governed by the same mathematical relationships as the motions of the other planets. There's absolutely nothing defective about that explanation.
For a theory to be valid, it doesn't need to provide an answer to every possible question that might come up. It only has to be able to withstand observations that might conflict with it.
All I was describing is what the heliocentric model does and does not claim to answer. Its purpose is to provide an explanation of the planets' motions in the sky, and that it does admirably. It states that the earth moves around the sun, and that that motion is what causes the planets to appear to move backwards at times. As a bonus, it also explains (with Kepler's modifications) that its motion is governed by the same mathematical relationships as the motions of the other planets. There's absolutely nothing defective about that explanation.What you're saying is that the gaps in our understanding of the THEORY of the heliocentric solar system can't overthrow the observed FACT that the solar system is heliocentric. I completely agree, and that's precisely why I brought it up. For exactly the same reason, the gaps in our understanding of the THEORY of evolution can't overthrow the observed FACT that life on Earth has evolved. You see?