Um -- nope.
Geo-centrism
This is your central error.
Geo-centrism has a meaning. That ain't it . . . read that and then you'll see why folks are laughing at the idea of supporting geocentrism.
I don't know what you're defending, but it ain't geocentrism. :-D
Similarly, I don't know what you're criticizing, but 'heliocentrism' ain't it.
If you're saying that you can describe the universe/solar system mathmatically, relative to the Earth, then we're all in agreement here.
But that's got nothing to do with geo/helio centrism.
Geocentric and heliocentric models are interchangeable under GR coordinate systems. Einstein admitted as much and so did Hoyle. Ernst Mach proved that the laws of geometry would be violated if there were any essential defference. If you can't see that heliocentric and geocentric models are interchangeable, then you have the wrong understanding of the geocentric model, or both.
Michelson-Morley failed to detect the motion of the earth around the sun.
Michelson-Gale detected the relative rotational motion between the earth and the universe, so motion is detectable.
Airey's Failure failed to detect the motion of the earth around the sun.
Apparently it is your understanding of geocentrism that is flawed, not Ernst Mach, Einstein, Hoyle or me.