As I said, it applies equally to heliocentrism as one of those 'alternate mappings of cosmology' that is commonplace and irrelevant.
You would agree that heliocentrism is ignored as an object of research, wouldn't you? That makes it irrelvant and it certainly is commonplace.
That's because, as Sir Fred Hoyle stated, the two models have been determined to be dynamically equivalent and there is no additional scientific knowledge to be discovered there.
Nice try, but you merely show the equivalence of the heliocentric and geocentric models, not the 'inferiority' of geocentrism nor the 'superiority' of heliocentrism.
I doubt that you understand it at that level, however.
So much for your 'psychotic' comment in post 1098. You are shown to be as uninformed as I said in post 1099 and as the one who could be 'twelve' as you indicated in post 1100.
Your problem is that your are boring. You are definitely in the running for the all time top ten most boring posters on crevo threads. You have spent countless posts arguing that the cosmos can be mapped to a geocentric model.
Something that has as much utility as counting angels on a pinhead. Not since "felt gravity" have we been so riveted.