Nope. You just don't understand that when Einstein says, "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless." he means meaningless. That is, without meaning. You try to impose meaning where Einstein says there is none. That is an error.
Born said, "Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right." This means that they are equally correct, as stated. Your attempt to imagine some inequality is wrong.
Hoyle said, "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense." This means that there is no meaningful physical difference. Your attempt to imagine some meaningful physical difference is wrong.
Ellis said, "For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations." This means that you cannot disprove it based on observations. Your attempt to invoke some imaginary observation that would disprove either one is wrong.
You just can't bring yourself to admit it.
"Now come on, give me some evidence that the Earth is flat, too."
Now come on, give me that evidence that rats are generated spontaneously from garbage and that maggots are generated spontaneously from carcasses.
All GR says is that no one point of reference is preferable over any other, thus technically making geocentrism possible in strictly GR terms.
But then there’s all the other observation and science that shows geocentrism is false. We have actually had a spacecraft go beyond the heliopause — oops, that would be geopause according to you. We have been far enough away from Earth to know for a fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
You still haven’t answered the flat Earth question. Should I assume it’s because the answer is too embarrassing?