Geocentricism

"And my opponent forgot nobody cares about his boring maths that don't help anybody understand anything."I'm sorry, I know you don't like facts and math, but math is FUNDAMENTAL to all sciences (funny, because your model lacks that?).Further I use nothing but simple algebra and fundamental physics... it's worrying if you don't understand that."I don't even believe in either Relativity theory but you do, so your misunderstanding of it makes you look really bad. It's like you forgot all of General Relativity!"My opponent doesn't believe in either Relativity theory... just wow. Even though each of these theories has passed all tests with flying colors, I like how my opponent doesn't explain at all WHY he doesn't believe in it. Even though we percieve gravitational lensing, detect muons (their half-life is waaaaay to small to me detected, however, thanks to special relativity, they are able to reach the ground for detection http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...), even though these theories are backed up by mathematics more beatiful than any of us can imagine, etc.I would like to see one test (that isn't posted by some random blogger, I'm talking about certified scientists) that disproves either theory."In my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment ... This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity."I never said that this expirement didn't inspire him to construct his theories, I was saying how his theories weren't SPECIFICALLY meant for the expirement, they indirectly provided an explanation to the expirement. The primary focus of Special Relativity (which explains the expirement) is that space and time are intertwined into spacetime, it's only out of this that things such as the expirement are explained. There are other things that the theory proved if you aren't happy... for example:1.) Gravitational lensing (http://www.cfhtlens.org...):In short, "mass" bends spacetime. As light from a distant galaxy travels along its path along spacetime,the curvature from a closer galaxy causes this light to be "deflected". At correct angles, this results in the light curving into an entire circle called an Einstein ring. More commonly though, you get these banna shaped stretches of light (Strong gravitational lensing), however, the more common occurence is weak gravitational lensing which distorts the object by les than 1%, imperciptible to the human eye. It's not that hard to find evidence for this... literally just stare into a telescope and you will find gravitational lensing everywhere. 2.) Gravitational waves:Einstein's theory predicts gravitational waves --> gravitational waves were detected --> another point to Einstein.Not much to debate about there, you have to be delusional to deny that gravitational waves exist... just in case though, here are some sources backing me uphttps://www.ligo.caltech.edu...http://www.sciencemag.org...https://spaceplace.nasa.gov...3.) Perihelion precession of Mercury (http://physics.ucr.edu...):Due to the Sun's mass, the elliptical orbital path varies slightly annually as the picture clearly illustrates The problem was that the perihelion precession of Mercury did not match the prediction by Newton's laws of gravity. Consequently, the calculated perihelion precession was 531.63″ ±0.69 (arcseconds/Julian Century) while the observed preihelion precession was 574.10″±0.6 (arcseconds/Julian Century). Welp, Einstein's theory of general relativity saves the day yet again. In Einstein's theory of general relativity, he uses the equation s://wikimedia.org...; alt="{\displaystyle \sigma ={\frac {24\pi ^{3}L^{2}}{T^{2}c^{2}(1-e^{2})}}\ ,}" /> (where where L is the semi-major axis, T is the orbital period, c is the speed of light, and e is the orbital eccentriciy) which calculates the correct value for the pereihelion precession of Mercury.Further, I'm curious as to how your geocentric model accounts for this clear perihelion precession? It's a fundamental probelm in cosmology after all. (http://www.relativity.li...)(https://en.wikipedia.org...) 4.) Deflection of light by the Sun:The reason for this is essentially the same as it is for gravitational lensing. This was the smoking gun for many people, I believe it was observed during a solar eclipse (since that allowed you to see the apparent position of nearby stars, allowing you to compare them to their actual position which deviates from the apparent position due to the Sun's mass).Here's the study: (http://w.astro.berkeley.edu...)Some more sources since I know how open my opponent is...right...: http://www.lacosmo.com...http://www.astro.ucla.edu... 5.) Gravitational redshift:This is a bit hard to explain to someone who doesn't know the fundamentals of general relativity, so I'll just list some sources.But just in case you don't decide to click on the sources --> Essentially, "Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation will lengthen as it climbs out of a gravitational well. Photons must expend energy to escape, but at the same time must always travel at the speed of light, so this energy must be lost through a change of frequency rather than a change in speed. If the energy of the photon decreases, the frequency also decreases. This corresponds to an increase in the wavelength of the photon, or a shift to the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum" (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au...)It's not a hard concept... just photons using up energy to overcome the force of gravity, the mathematics and details are best left to the experts however:http://iopscience.iop.org...http://astro.physics.uiowa.edu...http://scienceworld.wolfram.com...;(equations)This effect, by the way, is clearly observed from white dwarfs (https://arxiv.org...)http://www.physics.brocku.ca...6.) Light travel time delay testing: pretty self explainatory... pretty much some dude (Irwin I. Shapiro) showed that there was a time delay when radars are reflected off of planets in the Solar System. This delay occurs when the light gets near the Sun and gets curved --> more distance to travel --> larger time. here's the study --> https://ntrs.nasa.gov...other sources: https://arxiv.org...http://www.pbs.org...7.) The equivalence principle: essentially sets inertial and gravitational mass of an object as equalThis is why when you drop two objects of unequal mass, they fall at the same rate. I'm not too familiar on the subject, but you can read up on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org...https://science.nasa.gov...http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...8.) Frame-dragging tests http://webhome.phy.duke.edu...http://chartasg.people.cofc.edu...http://www.nature.com...9.) Binary pulsarshttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...http://www.people.carleton.edu...http://www.physics.umd.edu...I didn't have enough space to explain 8 and 9 sadly, but I think experts are much more reliable than my words...My explanation is better because it's simpler, easier to understand, and actually makes logical sense. Ya, it makes sense that the Earth would pretty much defy all known laws of physics and just stay still, not rotating, while be orbited by a Sun over 300,000x massive along with all the planets. Yes, how could I have been so blind. Let alone the NASA missions that land on Mars... yes, they totally just ignored that the Sun rotates around the Earth. Let alone that the helicocentric model easily explains all the problems I presented without the need to add in some complex detail. Oh boy.First of all, they've both failed plenty of tests. Secondly, Einstein's General Relativity says the sun can revolve around Earth, no problem.Source? I don't even know where to start with how wrong this is. I like how my opponent fails to present a SINGLE failed test. WHERE it says that General Relativity alows for the geocentric model (just blatantly wrong). Since my opponent didn't present any evidence... it's automatically wrong. Welcome to science and facts.Mars orbits the sun while the sun revolves around Earth. Here's a really good animation to show you what I mean:According to that animation.. the retrograde motion occurs WITHIN THE DAY (apparent from the motion of the Sun in the animation). Wow... it takes weeks if not MONTHS (read the dates here https://www.astrologyzone.com...)My opponet puts NO evidence for ANY of his claims, there is no evidence that Venus revolves in that matter. That the model of the solar system behaves in that presented way. Failure to show how the same geocentric model can compensate for all my presented problems (I'll add in the perehilion precession of Mercury for fun) without evidence already points out the superiority of the heliocentric model.I don't get why my opponent most likely believes that the government is trying to "cover this up", why would it even slightly benefit them? Also, please please PLEASE actually read the sources.