You lie when you say Einstein supports your asinine contention about a “gravitational imbalance” that factors in the “rest of the universe” that would cause the Sun to move around the Earth. That is not “according to Einstein”, that is merely according to you.
Still no peer reviewed scientific literature to back up your “rest of the universe” garbage, just more of your memorized cut and pasted drivel about coordinate systems.
“According to Einstein” is a lie. Einstein was not a geocentrist and never said anything about the gravity of the “rest of the universe” causing the Sun to orbit the Earth. When you say your ludicrous model is “according to Einstein” you lie, blatantly.
As Hoyle notes, there is no meaningful physical difference between one CS and another. To say that equivalence as CS is 'drivel' is to profoundly misunderstand GR. You may not like the physical equivalence of different CS, but then you must disprove GR because that's what GR is about.
"...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.
"You lie when you say Einstein supports your asinine contention about a “gravitational imbalance” that factors in the “rest of the universe” that would cause the Sun to move around the Earth. That is not “according to Einstein”, that is merely according to you."
"Either CS could be used with equal justification."
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
Note that "equal justification" means that the justification you use for geokineticism is scientifically equivalent to the justification used for geocentrism under GR.
"Still no peer reviewed scientific literature to back up your “rest of the universe” garbage, just more of your memorized cut and pasted drivel about coordinate systems."
Of course, Ellis notes that philosophical commitments drive the choice of model.
“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
"“According to Einstein” is a lie. Einstein was not a geocentrist and never said anything about the gravity of the “rest of the universe” causing the Sun to orbit the Earth. When you say your ludicrous model is “according to Einstein” you lie, blatantly."
Get a grip dude. Just because you don't like statements from scientists noting the equivalence of geocentrism and geokineticism under GR doesn't mean that you have to run around saying that people lie. Is your commitment to your favorite paradigm that tenuous?
You are free to choose whatever CS you like. Choose geokineticism, I don't care. The point is that it's a philosophical choice, not a scientific one. I'm not lying and neither are Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis.