The sun still rises, and it still goes down, going wearily back to where it must start all over again.
(Ecclesiastes 1:5) Good News Translation
There’s no observable difference between heliocentric and Geocentrospheric models because they’re two frames of reference in the same system. They coexist.
“We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance.”
— Sir Fred Hoyle in Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p. 416.
If you look carefully at the animated .GIF above, the apparent retrograde motion of Mars in the heliocentric and Geocentrospheric models, you should note that the relative position of the Earth, Mars and Sun is the same at all times in both of the diagrams.
We all have the same evidence. Our choice of paradigm determines what we think it’s evidence of.
– Matty’s Razor
From our frame of reference on Earth we observe an epicycle. Retrograde motion is what we call the phenomenon of epicycles from the heliocentric frame of reference.
Heliocentric and Geocentrospheric models are two different ways to understand the same observations. Imagine it this way:
Heliocentric or Geocentrospheric?
- IF you were on the Sun you’d be observing heliocentricity,
- SINCE you’re not, you’re on the Earth, you’re observing Geocentrosphericity.
Faith is believing in something that you can’t see, because of evidence.
– Faith, definition
However, heliocentric is theoretical, Geocentrospheric is empirical. Fred Hoyle was working within the mainstream science paradigm (SciPop) with it’s Newton/Einstein concept of gravity and so he was unaware that there actually is a physical difference between heliocentric and Geocentrospheric systems: the mass of planetary bodies.
If you’re concerned about the mass of the sun, and how could something so massive be in orbit around the Earth which is comparatively so small, then you’ve missed the point: the sun can be more or less massive than the Earth depending on your A priori assumption of heliocentric or Geocentrospheric cosmology. In both scenarios we use the same math: Newton’s law of universal gravitation and Kepler’s third law of planetary motion. If you assume Geocentrosphericity then the mass of the sun is a minute fraction of the value that you get from assuming heliocentricity, a factor of 9.87E-12 (Matty’s Constant).
Matty's Paradigm 
4 Replies to “Relative Motion”