The GourmetDan model: I will not say what force could possibly move the MASSIVE Sun around the tiny Earth, while leaving the Earth motionless (because there isn't one); but either model is equally valid as a coordinate system- and that is good enough for me to embrace Geocentricism as the SUPERIOR model, because either is equally valid as a coordinate system.
Laughable. The scientific model is superior in that it has a FORCE that can ACCOUNT for the motion, not just an “equally valid” coordinate system.
No, that is what you don't understand. That is philosophical as attested by the statements from Ellis.
"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
" The GourmetDan model: I will not say what force could possibly move the MASSIVE Sun around the tiny Earth, while leaving the Earth motionless (because there isn't one); but either model is equally valid as a coordinate system- and that is good enough for me to embrace Geocentricism as the SUPERIOR model, because either is equally valid as a coordinate system."
I explained this to you as long ago as 2008.
"Laughable. The scientific model is superior in that it has a FORCE that can ACCOUNT for the motion, not just an “equally valid” coordinate system."
Again, “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..."
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
Again, re-read Ellis' quote above. The contention that geokineticism is 'scientific' is simply wrong. It is philosophical.