Well, that's too bad because your mistake is in there. That's why I asked you to read it.
"Again, a heliocentric model is the only inertial system containing the earth, sun and planets."
Ahh, you're getting closer to admitting your mistake. That's good.
"Then, the question still stands, which you keep dodging: How does one determine the "Real" coordinate system? If that question can't be answered, the jury has no option but to include that there's no reason to believe such a thing exists."
Haven't been dodging it at all. As I have said over and over and over and over, you have to go outside the universe and look back to answer it. And, if the question can't be answered; that applies equally to heliocentric models.
"No, but celestial mechanics on the scale of the galaxy certainly accounts for these things. At that point a heliocentric system is worthless, too - you get the idea."
Ooh, you're almost there. If you can just open your mind up a wee bit more. :-)
Ok. I never claimed the sun was the center of the universe. It's clearly not. In fact, on the scale of the whole universe, according to GR, there is no center.
The earth isn't any sort of special reference system, at all, though, unless you're on earth. It's not the 'center' of anything, in any sort of physical sense.
Calling the Coriolis force and centrifugal forces on earth real, though? That's ridiculous - these forces appear in any rotating reference system. We can see the Coriolis effect on Jupiter from here. From Jupiter, one could observe the Coriolis effect on a rotating earth. The earth is just as relative a coordinate system as any other, in a physical sense.
Haven't been dodging it at all. As I have said over and over and over and over, you have to go outside the universe and look back to answer it.
So there's no reason to consider an earth-centered reference system as any more "real" than any other, then. Not really any point in any of this.