Original sentence: "...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses."The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless.)He said in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:.-- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.Einstein himslef said:.Either CS could be used with equal justification.George Ellis agreed that it would be possible to construct a geocentric model that would explain the observations:.He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that.Max Born, famous quantam mechanist and personal frien of Albbert Einstein had this to say (regard general relativity.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.This has been done by Thirring.Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right.What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models.“For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues.“You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.” Ellis has published a paper on this