What part of “The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view..." do you not understand?
"So I needed references, but you somehow do not."
One more time...
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
"My reference HAD peer review literature references; but you insisted you needed peer review literature references - DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE THEY WERE."
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between posting a reference that contains peer-reviewed links and posting a peer-reviewed link. And we haven't even begun to address the weakness of your conclusions from that peer-reviewed link because you won't address them even when they are posted directly to you.
All we get is the incredibly ignorant statement that "All things in science are “putative”".
We never did get your other link to work as you indicated, did we?
We also never got your reference for the statement that "the DNA shows the same genes lining up".
"All things in science are “putative”; you just parade your own ignorance by fixation upon that word."
All things in science are 'putative', huh? You'd better put some ice on that. Your credibility just took a major slap on the nose.
"The literature obviously supports all my statements."
Only if you invoke the fallacies of cherry-picking the data and affirming the consequent. This is why understanding where logical fallacy enters into your pronouncements is so important yet so lacking in your posts.
"You have nothing but your own scientific ignorance. But that is to be expected from someone who insists that the Sun circles the Earth."
Oh, so once again your comments are based upon total ignorance and the lack of ability to learn anything for yourself.
How many Newtons of force can you get out of a coordinate system?
And I wanted peer reviewed references that contradicted my assertions about chromosomes; not more confirmation of your delusion about Geocentricism.