I am not ignoring the gravity of the “rest of the universe”, indeed the gravity of our galactic system moves our Sun around the galactic center. It is YOU who are ignoring the gravity of the “rest of the universe” to support your absurd model.
You hold up Einsteins name as a talisman for Geocentricism, then admit that he was NOT a Geocentrist. Do you really think you have thought through the consequences of general relativity better than Einstein?
Once again, it is not my philosophy that the gravitational attraction between the Sun and the Earth causes an orbital acceleration on the Earth, it is BASIC PHYSICS.
But basic physics is obviously well beyond your understanding.
"You are delusional if you think the quotes you supplied have anything to do with the gravity from the “rest of the universe”."
Clearly you don't understand what those scientists are saying and your comment turns on your personal definition of the phrase 'anything to do with'. Ellis, in particular, says it very clearly below and any model that is not geokinetic must include the gravity of the rest of the universe. You simply lack the ability to understand what is being said.
"I am not ignoring the gravity of the “rest of the universe”, indeed the gravity of our galactic system moves our Sun around the galactic center. It is YOU who are ignoring the gravity of the “rest of the universe” to support your absurd model."
You are ignoring the gravity of the rest of the universe. The gravity of our galactic system is not the same as the gravity of the rest of the universe and your attempt to imply such is obvious. Geocentrism includes the gravity of the rest of the universe, geokineticism ignores it and focuses on the earth-sun CG.
"You hold up Einsteins name as a talisman for Geocentricism, then admit that he was NOT a Geocentrist. Do you really think you have thought through the consequences of general relativity better than Einstein?"
Nope, I quote from Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis. Men who understood GR and the competing models and made informed statements of the equivalence of geocentrism and geokineticism under GR. Your attempt to introduce belief into only one side of the debate is noted but disingenuous.
As Ellis notes, "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.”
" Once again, it is not my philosophy that the gravitational attraction between the Sun and the Earth causes an orbital acceleration on the Earth, it is BASIC PHYSICS. But basic physics is obviously well beyond your understanding."
No, your philosophy is that you can ignore the gravity of the rest of the universe and focus on the earth-sun CG and apply basic physics to that. The geocentrist position is confirmed by the quotes of Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis and says that geocentrists can do the same thing using the gravity of the entire universe. This is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend what the men I quote were saying.