That's not entirely true. I once came across a "geocentrist" model in which the neither the earth nor sun move, the earth rotates, and the sun is at the center with the universe rotating around it. How a geocentrist calls that geocentric remains a bit of a mystery to me, but this model does a better job with some (not all) observational data than the usual geocentric models I've seen.

Well, my no one was a slight hyperbole.  I'm sure you can believe SOMEone who believes just about anything.

The webpage at the above link also says:
.
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.
.
Now the webpage says the Earth orbits around the common barycenter of all the planets and the barycenter moves.
It also says the barycenter is always somewhere between the center of the Sun and just outside the Sun's surface.
So the common barycenter is never far from the Sun's surface.  
.
In the Geocentric model the Sun orbits around the center of the Earth.  The common barycenter is NEVER near the
center of the Earth.  In fact, the common barycenter is approximately 93,000.000 miles away from the center of
the Earth.
.
Conclusion: The barycenter argument proves that Geocentrism is complete nonsense.

The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope approved the Congregation's decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope and his assessors may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree ex cathedra.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Galileo

Statements approved in forma communi are statements of the Roman Congregation, not papal acts. To make it a properly papal act, it would need to be approved in forma specifica. It would additionally need to meet the requirements of Vatican I to be ex cathedra.
Particular models can and have been disproven by observation or experiment. Perhaps your model has not, but you haven't presented it.

There is no point in quoting the catholic encyclopedia, first published in 1907 on the Galileo case nor on the authority of the 1616 and 1633 decrees as though it was Church teaching. As far as I am aware from research a Dr Ward wrote the first article on the Galileo case in 1913 and he was a heliocentrist like the rest of them then. Now when you live in a post U-turn era, and believe science has proven the Sacred Doctrine of Geocentrism of the Bible, of all the Fathers and of the decrees of 1616 and 1633 wrong, then by God you will of course try to worm your way out of its irreversible authority as best you can. A Fr Roberts took on Dr Ward in his book but his version did not appear in the Catholic Encyclopedia for obvious reasons. Catholic Encyclopedias have followed the Galilean reformation since they first came out.

‘Galileo returned to Florence [in 1616] discouraged but not defeated’ writes J.J. Langford in the 1967 New Catholic Encyclopaedia. Galileo Galilei, as usual, is attributed the persistence of a saint in the face of persecution, and the teaching Church is treated as though Galileo had a moral right to reject, defy and challenge its definitive decrees.

Noah's global flood has now been demoted to a local flood in Catholic Encyclopedias and I have read in another that all mankind except Noah's family may not have drowned in the Flood.  

I have shown all on this thread that Vatican I's conditions for an infallible decree of the ordinary magisterium can be applied to the 1616 decree. Not all infallible decrees were like the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854 as you would claim. Pope Urban VIII confirmed its absolute irreversibility when he condemned Galileo in 1633. In 1820 The Holy Office under pope Pius VII also confirmed its infallibility. I have shown all that these infallible decrees were never falsified. But if you are a heliocentris heretic then of course you will try to worm your way out of heresy by claiming you know better than the Church itself.

The idea that the pope of the Catholic Church would decree that heliocentrism was formal heresy, inform Catholic Europe that one will go to hell if you deny this biblical revelation, and another pope would put Galileo on trial for that same heresy, when all were supposedly acting outside of the rules of the Church, is to make a joke of Catholicism. Yet even when told the 1616 decree was never falsified, Catholics still accuse the Churcvh of 1616 and 1633 of acting illegally. You couldn't make it up. Here is how Fr Roberts answered your position and that of most Catholics in the 20th century:

' Moreover, the judgment of Rome must outweigh the judgment of individual theologians; and the point I insist on is, that the minimising interpretation of the decree, the interpretation advocated by Dr. Ward and the apologists, is precisely the one that stands empha­tically repudiated and denounced by a Pontifical Congregation as involving the gravest error. Before the Inquisitorial sentence of 1633 it might perhaps have been plausibly urged that the decree of the Index was only disciplinary in its scope, that the censures “false and repugnant to Scripture” belonged to the preamble, and not to the decree itself. But to say this in the face of the sentence on Galileo is to say that Rome did not know her own mind, and could not interpret aright her own decisions. The minimising and apologetic view of the decree is, that the Church did not thereby mean to say that it is quite certain, but only highly probable, that helio­centricism is contrary to Scripture; and that she did not intend to deny that the progress of science might change the theological aspect of things. So understood, it is as clear as the sun at noonday that the decision could not seventeen years afterwards, have shown that it was impossible for the censured opinion to be in any way probable. But this is the very thing Rome, in 1633, de-clared the decision did show, and pronounced it a most grave error to suppose that it did not—” since in no manner can an opinion be probable that has already been declared and defined to be contrary to the divine Scripture.” And it must be noted that the Congregation is expressly referring to the kind of probability Galileo claimed for Copernicanism in the Dialogo,—intrinsic probability based on scientific considerations. Did the Congregation mean to say, “Since this opinion has been pronounced contrary to Scripture by a judgment that was not meant to be final, a judgment possibly erroneous, a judgment open to correction by the progress of science, it involves the gravest error to suppose that it can in any manner, even scientifically, be probable.” Yet this is just the non­sense it did mean to talk, if it did not mean its state­ment in a sense that excludes the apologist’s version of the decree. And in the actual sentence the Congre­gation showed its mind still more plainly, for it implicitly classed the decision with those definitions of the Church, the truth of which it would be heresy to challenge:— “We say, pronounce, and declare that you, the said Galileo, on account of the things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy—that is, that you believed and held a doctrine false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the universe, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves and is not in the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.” Such language was, of course, ludicrously inapplicable to the case, unless the decision ought to have been taken as the Church’s judgment, and as absolutely true.

Now, with regard to the Neptune issue, I have to agree with apollo that this must be addressed.  While I acknowledge that God can do whatever He wants it's unlikely that God would regularly violate the laws of physics that He established.

If the earth is completely stationary, and Neptune is as far away from the earth as they scientists say, it would in fact have to be moving faster than the speed of light.  I did the math.  Speed of light is roughly 670 million MPH.  In order for Neptune to make a revolution around the sun in 24 hours, it would have to be moving at 730 million MPH.  That's somewhat oversimplified, since using geocentric coordinates, Neptune would be moving around the earth and around the sun ... but the math would still be very close to that.  I believe that this demands an answer and cannot just be dismissed as "God's will".

One solution would be that the earth is in fact rotating on its axis.

Another would be that Neptune is not nearly as far away as scientists claim.

Are there any other explanations?  I know that speed is relative to distance, and I see some discussion about frame dragging and relativity.  Indeed, if I were the size of a speck of dust inside a basketball, if the basketball rotated once per second, that would be a relatively slow speed from the perspective of a man holding the ball, say on the tip of his finger.  But based on the unit of measure of that spec-of-dust-sized entity in the middle, the speed that a similar spec of dust on the basketball's surface would in fact be extraordinary ... based on the unit of measure employed by the tiny entity.  So I think that there's something to be said for that ... along the lines of what Cassini mentioned about the door hing.  When something rotates around an axis, the speed of things at the outer edge is orders of magnitude faster than the speed of things closer to the center.  But that speed really is relative to the unit of measure based on size.

I'll keep digging into this.

If you have a problem with Neptune, what about the stars? For God to turn the whole universe around in 24 hours is no harder than creating them out of nothing.

What are the laws of physics that God must violate?

If you start using mere human reasoning to judge the ability of God's creating and Creation (Naturalism) then you have entered dangerous grounds.

If God's creation could be proven by science then it would not be an act of faith. We Catholics believe in His Creation on faith alone.

I have shown all on this thread that Vatican I's conditions for an infallible decree of the ordinary magisterium can be applied to the 1616 decree. 

You may believe that, but you have shown no such thing. However, I'm glad you're identifying it as coming from the ordinary magisterium. As the Church has clearly not taught geocentrism for 200+ years, it is prima facie not a teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

Now, with regard to the Neptune issue, I have to agree with apollo that this must be addressed.  

Things can go faster than light if space itself is bent. The majority cosmology has the universe expanding, carrying galaxies with it, so at some distance (the Hubble radius, about 14 billion light years) galaxies are moving away at faster than the speed of light. There are cosmologies without space expanding, but they're generally splitting space-time a different way and have odd consequences, like going forward in time moves you in space.

Now, I don't know if geocentrists are claiming space is bending to make the universe rotate. But a rotating universe still raises other questions. How exactly did probes like Pioneer 10 (which passed the orbit of Neptune in the 1980s) get to that speed without anything showing up on accelerometers? Closer to home, wouldn't this rotating universe "drag" the earth into rotation? If not, where does the rotation stop? Does it rotate past geostationary satellites?

Also it's interesting that barycenters keep getting mentioned. The barycenter of the solar system moves around, and this causes small changes in movement of the sun and the orbits of the planets. As aberration is caused by velocity, this should show up in aberration. It is a small effect (on the order of tens of microarcseconds) and we did not have the observational precision to see it until the Gaia spacecraft. And it's there! Strict geocentrists would need to attribute yet another arbitrary motion to the stars to match this data that is both easily explained and predicted by standard physics.

And that's a general problem with strict geocentricity. Things we see elsewhere - bulges in planet equators, coriolus forces (eg, Jupiter), orbits, all happen due to standard physics, but on a "fixed earth" have to be caused by a different physics that produces exactly the same effect as standard physics predicts if the earth is moving.

Quote from: cassini on July 10, 2019, 10:23:48 AM

If you start using mere human reasoning to judge the ability of God's creating and Creation (Naturalism) then you have entered dangerous grounds.

If God's creation could be proven by science then it would not be an act of faith. We Catholics believe in His Creation on faith alone.

3. We using human reasoning to understand the order in the universe and the laws
which govern the movement of the planets, which leads to the conclusion that it must
be a creation of an intelligent being (proof of God).  Does God hate for man to use
telescopes ?

I think this gets close to the core of the problem - Cassini appears to think the universe is not rational (not understandable by reason), and subscribes to some form of Fideism. That's a Protestant concept.

Let's say you had a solar system with a couple dozen extremely massive planets.  In such a scenario, it's possible that the barycenter of such a solar system would actually be closer to one of these planets than to the sun ... or even within one of the planets ... despite the fact that no individual planet has more mass than the sun itself.  So it's not about the most massive body is stationary while everything else moves.

You're thinking the earth is at the barycenter of the universe? A barycenter is a center of mass.

First, that would require every mass in space to be balanced by another mass on the direct opposite side of the earth. Since that doesn't happen within observable distances, the balancing masses would have to be very far away, and maintaining a position opposite something we do see, like the sun, not just at different superluminal speeds, but also moving in different directions. This is much more than the Neptune issue and I doubt it could be handled by bending space.

Second, the barycenter of the universe still wouldn't be what planets orbit in the solar system. Consider that Pluto-Charon orbit a barycenter (that's not inside Pluto) although together they orbit something else.

Third, the barycenter is not in general a location of no gravitational pull. The Sun-Jupiter barycenter is close to the sun. Something at that barycenter would be pulled far more by the Sun, not balanced between the Sun and Jupiter.

Prolife
Have you ever seen or heard about Foucault pendulum? It 's a very simple experiment for evidence of earth's rotation.

.
Also when you drain the water in your bathtub, it rotates one way in the Northern hemisphere
and the opposite way in the Southern hemisphere.  And at the equator, no rotation.
/