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?
Wrong. GR says that they are physically and observationally indistinguishable. Thus making geocentrism and geokineticism physically and observationally equivalent.
"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."
Misrepresentation is possible, or ignorance. I can't tell which is more likely.