What they are NOT equivalent as is as a model of gravitation.
Your contention that your “gravitational imbalance” model causing the Sun to orbit the Earth is “according to Einstein” was what I have asked in post after post for you to substantiate.
Nice to see that after a dozen or so posts the point finally starts to sink in.
Are you now going to actually supply any support at all that your system is “according to Einstein”?
No. Of course you are not, because it was a lie, and Einstein would have to be an absolute moron to buy into your ludicrous model.
The gravity necessary to drag the Sun around the Earth would not leave the Earth motionless, but would sweep it up like a leaf in a storm.
But you are incapable of addressing this issue with any facts or figures involving the equation for gravitational attraction or any peer reviewed literature; so I stand ready for your to post your drivel about them being equivalent as coordinate systems again.
What else can you do other than to repeatedly repeat yourself, you certainly cannot substantiate your lie.
Again, according to Hoyle:
“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.
Again, according to 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
You pretend that equality is limited to CS when both Hoyle and Ellis note that they are "entirely equivalent from a physical point of view" and "you cannot disprove it based on observations"
"What they are NOT equivalent as is as a model of gravitation."
Geocentrism is a models of the universe, not of gravitation.
"Your contention that your “gravitational imbalance” model causing the Sun to orbit the Earth is “according to Einstein” was what I have asked in post after post for you to substantiate."
You keep misrepresenting this point. Geocentrism is that the earth is the CG of the universe.
"Nice to see that after a dozen or so posts the point finally starts to sink in."
Your misrepresentation has been clear all along. That does not make it a 'point'.
"Are you now going to actually supply any support at all that your system is “according to Einstein”?"
Sure.
“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
"No. Of course you are not, because it was a lie, and Einstein would have to be an absolute moron to buy into your ludicrous model."
Not a lie at all, as the quote from Einstein shows.
"The gravity necessary to drag the Sun around the Earth would not leave the Earth motionless, but would sweep it up like a leaf in a storm."
Einstein, Hoyle and Ellis do not agree with you.
"But you are incapable of addressing this issue with any facts or figures involving the equation for gravitational attraction or any peer reviewed literature; so I stand ready for your to post your drivel about them being equivalent as coordinate systems again."
Again, Hoyle said they are "entirely equivalent from a physical point of view" and Ellis said "you cannot disprove it based on observations".
"What else can you do other than to repeatedly repeat yourself, you certainly cannot substantiate your lie."
Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.