Note that the Sun is always the same size throughout the day (which, means, the same distance from Earth):



Geocentrism, to have any plausibility, must assert that the Sun goes around the Earth at nearly the same distance, hence, the Sun must go around the Earth in a circle.  But, Here's a Martian sunrise:



And, a Martian sunset:



Note that the Sun is the same size from both Mars & Earth but is smaller in Mars' sky than it appears in Earth's sky:



Ergo, the Sun is farther away from Mars than it is from the Earth, which is why it is smaller, but it always appears to be the same size!

Note that the Earth can be seen from Mars and that is moves:



Geocentrism cannot possibly be true, because it would mean that the Sun goes around the Earth in a circle and around Mars in a circle, both at the same time, which is mathematically and physically impossible!

Geocentrism cannot possibly be true, because it would mean that the Sun goes around the Earth in a circle and around Mars in a circle, both at the same time, which is mathematically and physically impossible!

 

Utterly idiotic.  As I told you, the math and physics are NOT impossible.  In fact, the math was worked many centuries ago.  Most Planetarium projectors (I actually went to a planetarium last night with my kids) are developed around GEOCENTRIC MATH.

What you are proposing is the Tychonic system, which came after the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian system:



Of course, if the Sun is a constant size in Mars' sky and the Sun is a constant size in Earth's sky, then the size of Mars will vary wildly in Earth's sky.  In fact, Mars should be about the half the size of the Moon during its closet approach to Earth, which, of course, never happens.

P.S.  If the above were also true, then we should be able to see Mars transit (that is, cross the face of the Sun), which, of course, we never see.

P.S.

Brahe served as an astronomer for the Danish king before settling in Prague in the court of Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II. Brahe is known for making the most accurate measurements of stars and planets without the aid of a telescope, proving that comets are objects in space and not in Earth's atmosphere

unlike the inaccurate galileo

The distance between Mars and Earth varies in both systems.  If your analysis about the relative size was definitive proof about which system is correct don't you think we would be reading about it in the scientific literature?  Please give us a reference.  I can't find anything.  The scientists are claiming:

James Bradley's discovery of stellar aberration, published in 1729, eventually gave direct evidence excluding the possibility of all forms of geocentrism including Tycho's.

cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe

I think you would be well-served to stick to the different arguments already published by scientists rather than try to figure this thing out on your own.  But I think you should also consider reading some of Robert Sungenis' work as well.

.

The mathematics used to describe how geocentrism works is the same mathematics that can describe how any other point in our solar system can be thought of as stationary, or motionless.  It makes no difference to the physics of the theoretical system being considered.  

Using the identical gravitational formulas and those for elliptical orbits (such that the area traced out by the arc of orbit by a satellite is the same area for each unit of time, regardless of the distance from the presumed stationary focal point), the sun could be thought of as stationary (but nobody thinks that it is anymore, unlike Galileo), or Jupiter could be thought motionless, or Mars, or Venus, or Earth's moon, or even Halley's comet.  

In fact, any point in space, even one not occupied by any planet, sun or asteroid (or a particle of space debris or dust), could be imagined motionless and the center of rotation around which all other objects rotate.  The math is the same.

The way planets and/or the sun appear to a viewer located at any particular point is likewise the same, regardless of whether one presumes that one spot or another is "motionless."  

An analogy could be a merry-go-round, where someone standing on the rotating floor could be the "motionless" one, and the world around the merry-go-round is in motion (relatively speaking).  From the standpoint of physics and mathematical calculation, the way the world around appears to the rider is the same whether the rider believes he is moving or not.  

When engineers figure how large framework beams and columns in a bridge have to be to make the bridge safe, they use a system called "taking moments of inertia" which requires presuming some point to be stationary, or "point zero."  To do so, they can choose any point on the bridge, and "take moments" around that "zero point," most often using two or more points in successive calculations, to double or triple check their work for accuracy.  When all the numbers are correct, they'll get the same results for member forces regardless of which point is held as "zero" (or "motionless").  If you know an engineer, ask him this question.  And don't be surprised if he has to stop and think when you ask him how this applies to geocentrism, because they do not make the connection (which is simple logic) in engineering schools.  That's another topic, really.

Many misunderstandings about the discussion around geocentrism arise from a failure to recognize the simple principle described above.

.

kepler discovered nothing

Kepler didn't 'discover' anything, and he didn't prove anything. He worked with
mountains of data, and found a theory that fit them best.

Tycho Brahe was a Dane who spent most of the nights of his life observing the
stars and the planets, measuring their positions, and keeping written records of
his measurements. Kepler had access to Tycho's notebooks, and used Tycho's
data to try to figure out how all of these things were situated and how they moved.

Kepler spent literally years with Tycho's measurements, trying one model after
another for how the set of planets was put together, looking for one geometry
that would fit the motions that Tycho actually saw. What he 'discovered' was:
If you assume that the sun is in the middle and assume that the planets revolve
around it in elliptical orbits, then that model fits Tycho's observations pretty well.

In his three "laws" of planetary motion, Kepler said: "Here's a model that does
a pretty good job of describing the motions we see in the sky, and here's how
the model is put together":

soooooooo........... his theory proves (according to this "science" article) Geocentrism.