Replies

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.

"Not wrong, two ways of saying the same thing. But GR isn't everything."

Yes wrong. GR says that they are physically and observationally indistinguishable. That is far different from your claim that saying that "no one point of reference is preferable over any other" as you did.

This is why Hoyle said, "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense."

I gave you this quote already. Did you not understand it? You're back to claiming the exact thing that was already refuted.

"We have other observations that confirm the Earth revolves around the Sun."

No you don't. 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."

I gave you this quote already. Did you not understand it? You're back to claiming the exact thing that was already refuted.

"We couldn't have sent probes to Mars and the outlying planets if heliocentrism was incorrect."

Ernst Mach proved that idea wrong way back in the 19th century. Just who are you listening to? Surely you aren't thinking these things up all by yourself, are you?