Geocentricism

"Yes, gravty is everywhere, but you need an insane amount of gravity to actual lense an object. Further, even with high-powered telescopes such as Hubble, strong gravitational lensing requires nearly-perfect alignment with the 2 galaxies."For every galaxy there is another galaxy perfectly aligned behind it at some distance, so there should be lensing everywhere. But there isn't."Gravitational waves were detected via LIGO"I read about that. Supposedly light didn't take as long as normal to travel down a tube because that tube was shortened by a gravity wave. But if there aren't any gravity waves, then the light beam reached the end of the tunnel faster not because the tunnel was squashed but because the light itself was propelled faster than c by the gravity wave, breaking Einstein's theory, and you can't prove this wrong. So gravity waves aren't proof of Relativity. They can be explained without it."As the reader can see, my opponent simply chery-picked what information he wanted to put in without mentioning the fallacies in Gerber's equation."The equation is exactly the same as Einstein's, so if it has a fallacy then that means General Relativity has a fallacy."Luckily for you, however, you are not living in the 1900s and now have thousands of studies confirming the initial study's observation of the Sun's deflection."That's not proof of General Relativity since Isaac Newton already predicted this in his book Opticks: “Do not Bodies act upon Light at a distance, and by their action bend its Rays, and is not this action strongest at the least distance?” "The "color of light" is very important since as it gets "redder", it symbolizes the loss of energy as it battles the FORCE of gravity."That's what you believe, but there's no proof the light is red because it lost energy from gravity. Maybe the light is just naturally red. After all when you look at an apple you know the light coming from the apple is naturally red, you don't claim the apple's gravity made it red."You just offended all the radar astronomers reading this."Did I? All I asked was how do radars, like the radars themselves, get reflected off of planets like you said? Radars reflect things, but radars themselves aren't reflected!"Can you please explain exactly what the study shows?"The gravity of a giant chunk of uranium was used to attract a tiny piece of copper and a tiny piece of lead, and it acclerated them at different speeds."Also, your next quote contradicts itself where Weinberg states " if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets.". What is this force? How come you haven't even brought it up?"I don't know what this force is, I just quoted this to show you that Newton admitted if this force exists than geocentrism can be true."Which you can see because in the animation, by the time Mars has completed its retrograde motion, the Sun has just completed its revolution around the Earth, which YOU defined as a day"If I did that, I made a mistake. The revolution of the sun in the animation is clearly its annual revolution."In fact, if you look for 1 min on a NASA website, you will find statements like "While Copernicus rightly observed that the planets revolve around the Sun, it was Kepler who correctly defined their orbits""According to Relativity that you believe in, Copernicus was right and wrong at the same time because that's how stupid Relativity is. I already proved to you that NASA uses a geocentrism frame of reference for launching satellites. Look at this NASA paper, Deriving a Geocentric Reference Frame For Satellite Position and Navigation: ipnpr.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42-95/95A.PDF