[GourmetDan]

"All GR says is that no one point of reference is preferable over any other, thus technically making geocentrism possible in strictly GR terms."

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.

[antiRepublicrat]

Wrong. GR says that they are physically and observationally indistinguishable. Not wrong, two ways of saying the same thing. But GR isn't everything. We have other observations that confirm the Earth revolves around the Sun. We couldn't have sent probes to Mars and the outlying planets if heliocentrism was incorrect.

You are several hundred years behind the science, using the standard creationist technique of grabbing onto a tiny part of established science to say that confirms your 2,000+ year-old view of science.

[ColdWater]

Wrong. GR says that they are physically and observationally indistinguishable. Thus making geocentrism and geokineticism physically and observationally equivalent.

Not really. In order to have geocentrism, you have to invent fictional forces.