Your lie was that Einstein bought into your ‘Earth at the center of gravity of the universe’ model. That is absolutely not “according to Einstein”, when you suggested that your model was “according to Einstein” you lied.
Neither have you substantiated this supposed ‘gravity imbalance’ by any peer reviewed literature or equations that would show your model to even be possible.
There is nothing magical about being at the center of gravity that would keep the Earth at the center of gravity. The gravity between the Sun and Earth would still cause an orbital acceleration on the Earth unless countered continually by an equal and opposite force.
No wonder you are so reluctant to state your actual model, it is moronic, not supported by physics, not in the peer reviewed literature and absolutely NOT “according to Einstein”.
Unfortunately, according to Hoyle and Ellis, equivalence as a CS is the same as physical and observational equivalence. For some reason you continue to maintain that you can accept equivalence as a CS and yet reject equivalence physically and observationally. Hoyle and Ellis do not agree.
Again:
"...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.
And again:
“For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
"Your lie was that Einstein bought into your ‘Earth at the center of gravity of the universe’ model. That is absolutely not “according to Einstein”, when you suggested that your model was “according to Einstein” you lied."
Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.
"Neither have you substantiated this supposed ‘gravity imbalance’ by any peer reviewed literature or equations that would show your model to even be possible."
Since GR is a gravitational model, a gravitational imbalance is the only possibility.
"There is nothing magical about being at the center of gravity that would keep the Earth at the center of gravity. The gravity between the Sun and Earth would still cause an orbital acceleration on the Earth unless countered continually by an equal and opposite force."
Which is what the gravitational imbalance does. The constant geokinetic error is to focus on the sun/earth CG instead of the CG of the universe. This is implicit in all of your objections and is an error.
'No wonder you are so reluctant to state your actual model, it is moronic, not supported by physics, not in the peer reviewed literature and absolutely NOT “according to Einstein”."
Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.
Again:
“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
“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