The Earth orbits the Sun

You state that if an object is moving faster than light you wouldn't be able to see it. Why? This is only a theory, and not provable due the the fact that no one on Earth has been able to make something move faster than the speed of light. The heavens are so much more vast than the earth, holding wonders that we stand in awe of as we get a small glance. It is not even logical to assume that the laws that run this Earth and sustain life would be the same as the laws the wondrous heavens are run by. Therefore I do not find it logical to use something we know so little about as an argument. Motion of planets and stellar bodies: You are thinking to small and forgetting that the aether is also spinning. Picture as if the entire universe were the ball set in a circular motion in a friction-less environment. If this were so, (which it is in the geocentric model) all the planets and stellar bodies would have no scientific problem continuing in an orbital pattern due to being kept in place by the supper dense aether as it spins. It is like stirring a pot of soup. As you stir the pot, the contents of the soup rotate around the center. Notice that nothing big has to be in the center of the pot for the contents to spin because they do not rely on gravity, but simply the dense, spinning water to keep it in orbit. According to the law of conservation of angular momentum, And Newton's law of motion, this pot of soup would continue spinning forever if it was in a friction-less environment. The pot of Soup is the entire universe. (just in case you didn't catch that) Time laps photos: This is what I am saying. the stars are MOVING. NOT EARTH. This is why the stars farthest from Polaris have a longer trail of light, as they have to move faster to cover their circumference in unison with the stars closer to Polaris, which have a much smaller circumference to cover. If the Earth was spinning, it would cause a spiral dizzy effect on the time laps photos because the sight of the camera would capture all the stars appearing to move the speed of the moving camera. Moon's orbit: I will elaborate. If the Moon's apogee occurs on the side of the Earth that it needs to accelerate, it will slow down instead, and thus not be moving fast enough to get ahead of the supposed speed of the Earth orbiting the Sun. The aether: The aether does not move across the ground of the Earth, it moves across the atmosphere of the Earth. If a helicopter were to hover in the atmosphere, the pilot WOULD have to compensate for an enormous wind resistance from the east or else he will automatically go west in comparison to the ground, just like the ball and the moving four wheeler. But this does not happen. The Earth acts the same as a stationary four wheeler: We feel no dominant wind resistance, and if something hovers straight up, it remains in the same spot in comparison to where they left the ground. These are all signs of a stationary Earth, not a rotating one. You keep saying that time laps photos of Polaris are proof that the earth is spinning. It is NOT. It is proof that the stars are spinning and not the Earth, as I stated above in the time laps photos section of my argument. This with the above statement about the aether, and elaborating on the four wheeler analogy both give signs of a stationary earth and a rotating aether and contents thereof. The argument of the Moon's orbit shows that, using Kepler's laws, and Newton's law of motion, it would be impossible for the Moon to continue its orbit around the moving earth (as needed for the heliocentric model to work) when the Moon's apogee is on the side of the Earth opposite the Sun. Thus showing the heliocentric model faulty. And as far as I know, there is only one other model that works. And if the geocentric model is the only one unable to be proved faulty, It seems of a necessity that we embrace it rather than a more faulty model, thus making probable that the Earth really is in the center of the universe.