No, it means that there may be forces other than gravity that produce synchrotron radiation in the universe (namely electricity) and that black holes are merely mathematical constructs. I know that's difficult to grasp.
"So you propose electromagnetism as the “ruling force” that offsets this huge gravitational disparity and makes the Sun circle the Earth? Last time it was the ‘gravity of the other planets and the rest of the universe’. I guess you abandoned that one when I laughed, showed you the equation for gravity and did the calculations that showed everything else was too small and/or too far away to counteract the calculated force that the Sun exerts upon the Earth."
No, you merely misrepresent (or cannot understand) what I wrote then or what I wrote just now.
I abandoned my belief in a 'kinetic earth' after finding that eminent scientists such as Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis all understood that geocentrism is an equally valid way of looking at the evidence, leaving no reason to accept the words of men over the clear geocentrism in the Word of God.
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
So then, what force offsets the gravitational force that the Sun exerts upon the Earth such that the reality is turned on its head and the massive object of the Sun is brought under the sway of the relatively tiny object of the Earth?
If gravity isn’t the “ruling force” what force offsets it such that it would make the Sun circle the Earth?
Saying I don’t understand what you never explained is the only gambit you advance when questioned on this.