Geocentrism

[M]y opponent must give an alternate explanation for the missing centripetal force for geocentricism to be plausible. Without this explanation for the missing centripetal force, there is no explanation as to how the rest of the universe could rotate Earth. You know how the entire solar system orbits it's center of mass? The center of mass is actually not necessarily the center of the sun, but only a point near it, and at times, such as when the planets are more or less aligned on one side of the sun, the center of mass will be found closer towards the planets, significantly displaced from the sun's center, and even the sun will orbit this point. Cosmologist Fred Hoyle puts it nicely: [W]e find[...] that the center of the solar system must be placed at an abstract point known as the "center of mass," which is displaced quite appreciably from the center of the Sun. And if we imagine a star to pass moderately close to the solar system[...] it could be essential to use a "center of mass" which included the star. The "center" in this case would lie even farther away from the center of the Sun. It appears, then, that the "center" to be used for any set of bodies depends on the way in which the local system is considered to be isolated[...] If a new body is added to the set from outside, or if a body is taken away, the "center" changes. Thus, considering the universe as a whole as an isolated system, then if Earth were to occupy the center of mass of the entire universe, the entire universe would orbit Earth (by virtue of the fact that it orbits the center of mass that Earth happens to occupy), just as even the sun orbits the solar system's center of mass (when the solar system is considered a closed system).I'm sure readers are familiar with the Big Crunch, where the universe is proposed to collapse in on itself due to it's own gravity, if it were not for the supposed expansion of space and dark energy to counteract this tendency. This tendency of the universe to collapse in on it's center provides the centripetal force my opponent demands, since the barycenter is where gravity is 'concentrated', so to speak. In the Geocentric model, it is not dark energy or space expansion that counteracts this inward gravitational pull, but rather an opposing, outward gravitational pull that arises from the universe's spin, which is analogous to the centrifugal force, except it's real and not fictitious. In fact, both Einstein and Rosser refer to this as a type of centrifugal force, and this is what I was talking about whenever I said a centrifugal force caused by the spinning universe holds geostationary satellites up. Since this 'centrifugal' force is not the typical, fictitious force, but a real force, it explains the geostationary satellite 'problem' perfectly.Anyone who understands General Relativity can easily grasp this concept. Since the spinning, spherical universe has immense velocity at it's outermost edge, it's outer edge posseses immense mass, and thus, immense gravity. This gravity pulls outwards, preventing the Big Crunch and holding up geostationary satellites. According to An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity: Relative to the stationary [Earth], the distant stars would have[...] velocities exceeding [c][...] If one considers the [Earth] as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field [of the outermost universe] assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed [c] under these conditions. Con complains: Even if the rest of the universe did spin, that cannot give nonmoving objects a centrifugal force. As I've demonstrated, it indeed can give nonmoving objects a real centrifugal force (to be distinguished from a fictitious one), and even Einstein agrees with me here. I can quote him if Con demands it. It is unreasonable to expect me or the judges to read through that entire source to locate the relevant information Sorry. Page 221 at the top right.