Just for the record, I’m not a geocentric dude...
This issue is not like interpreting historical data, this is an observable thing without any “jumps” of extrapolation,
plus, the mathematics involved in the heliocentric model are simpler and more elegant, and thus fit with the general revelation of the rest of the rules of the universe.
I think perhaps Dan is pulling your leg.
Geocentric mathematics is used in all earth-orbital satellites because it is simpler in that realm and heliocentric mathematics is used in all solar system orbital satellites because it is simpler there. Convenience in mathematics is not a logical reason to adopt a worldview.
After all, the solar system is supposed to be moving through the galaxy, which is supposed to be moving through the universe, yet you don't assume that the solar system is stationary at the center of the universe because the mathematics is simpler. Nor do you adopt universal mathematics and account for all of the motions within the universe because it is supposed to represent reality. So, it is clearly a reasoning-error to say that you believe in geokineticism because interplanetary orbital calculations are easier. While that may be true, it is irrelevant.
Do you realize that GR was developed because M-M unexpectedly returned a 'null result'. Rather than drop their belief in geokineticism, physicists (including Einstein) looked for ways for make geokineticism consistent with no observable motion (both M-M and Airey's Failure) because they 'know' that the earth orbits the sun. The result was GR.
Now, it should be no surprise at all that GR was developed so that coordinate systems are consistent between geokineticism and geocentrism because the foundational observation (M-M null result) is consistent w/ geocentrism. Somehow people aren't able to see that the problem is their 'a priori' assumption of geokineticism, not observations.
In short, to argue that there is any physically significant difference at all between geokineticism and geocentrism is to argue against GR (as Hoyle makes clear).
“I think perhaps Dan is pulling your leg.”
Think again.
You know guys. Copernican heliocentricity was the first ‘scientific’ issue where large numbers of people believed that the Bible had been ‘shown’ to be false. It was the camel’s nose under the tent. In reality, nothing of the sort had been done. It is the same as the Darwinian ‘revolution’ and long-ages for the earth/universe. The only support for these positions is that large numbers of people believe it.
It took 300 years from Galileo before Ernst Mach proved that the essential rules of geometry would be violated were there any classical physical difference between a geocentric and a heliocentric universe, thereby proving Galileo and Copernicus were wrong to claim that geokineticism was scientifically true. It wasn’t them and isn’t now.
It hasn’t taken nearly that long for the astronomers I quoted to say the same thing wrt GR. GR would be fundamentally violated if there were any relativistic physically significant difference between geocentrism and geokineticism.
I would think that would cause a Christian to pause and reconsider their beliefs here. Just as has been done wrt creation and a young-earth. Geokineticism is based on the same interpretation-method as evolution and an old-earth. The evidence isn’t uniquely there to favor it. Geokineticism is the last giant that opposes your faith. Once that one falls, you are entirely free.
I am free.