.

.
They do give a huge amount of evidence in their article on Geocentrism, which is not their opinion.
So whether they are infallible is irrelevant on this subject.

Thanks!  It is good to remind people that they are NOT infallible, although it would be best if they would remind people directly of this fact and do it regularly in an emphatic way.  Evidence, of course, may or may  not be in accord with proof.  That is to say, they are obviously not always one and the same.

What's more important with gravity, apollo, is that you seem to forget that it is not the body/mass of the sun which anchors the earth to it ... but, rather, the CENTER OF MASS OF THE ENTIRE SYSTEM that serves as the frame of reference.  Consequently, it's the center of mass of the entire solar system around which all the bodies in the solar system ... INCLUDING THE SUN ITSELF ... are said to revolve.  This is usually located somewhere within the physical boundaries of the sun itself, but not always, and were you to introduce another massive planet or two into the system, the center of gravity would not be located within the sun.

Now expand out to the galaxy and to the universal.  There's only ONE SINGLE POINT, from the perspective of gravity, in the entire universe that could be said to be stationary, and that would be the center of mass of the entire universe.  Now, who knows where that happens to be physically, but no one can prove that it does not happen to be located within the physical confines of earth.

We can simply measure a phenomenon that happens predictably given a specific context.  Yet gravity doesn't seem to apply at the atomic level.  Best guess is that it's related to electro-magnetism.  Consequently, other measurable factors other than mass (which is all the gravity considers) could be responsible for anchoring bodies together, and so, depending on what that is, it could theoretically be possible for a smaller (aka less massive) body to anchor a larger one.  So the argument from gravity is inconclusive.

.
Then tell me which larger body in the universe orbits around a smaller body. 
And also tell me which measurable force is causing that. 

Call it what you want, but it does NOT prove heliocentrism.

.
This is just a small detail about where the center is.  In the case of our solar system, the center is close to the center of the Sun.
And this is proof for Heliocentrism.

Utter nonsense.  Even the sun itself revolves around the CENTER OF MASS OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM.  And that's merely in the context of the solar system.  You're showing now the desperation of someone who has bad will and is not seeking the truth.

Even modern science is not heliocentric.

NASA and Newtonian Physics are BARYCENTRISTS ...

Our entire solar system also has a barycenter. The sun, Earth, and all of the planets in the solar system orbit around this barycenter. It is the center of mass of every object in the solar system combined.


Our solar system’s barycenter constantly changes position. Its position depends on where the planets are in their orbits. The solar system's barycenter can range from being near the center of the sun to being outside the surface of the sun. As the sun orbits this moving barycenter, it wobbles around.

So the sun too ORBITS the BARYCENTER.  It's the BARYCENTER that is at the center of the solar system ... but only if viewed as a closed system (which it is most certainly not).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychonic_system

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-a-geocentrism-model-could-be-true-and-the-Earth-is-the-centre-of-the-universe

Take a read for yourself, it's interesting stuff. Main principle is related to what you were saying. The planets orbit the Sun(or rather, its barycentre) as the Sun is the greatest mass in their vicinity, but the Sun orbits the Earth as the Earth is the centre of the universe. Apparently the maths checks out, although I haven't read enough into it or made any attempt to verify yet.