Since Neil has said in the past that he's a geocentrist, I'd like to see him explain how he reconciles geocentrism with modern science, since modern science does not believe in geocentrism. Modern science is staunchly heliocentric.

.
First thing, you've already come out swinging against a strawman. Modern science is absolutely NOT "heliocentric." 
.
Modern astronomers, astrophysicists and mathematicians have long ago abandoned heliocentrism.
.
Maybe you missed the memo.
.

So NASA promotes and believes in geocentrism? I guess I missed that memo. Can you please provide data which shows this?

.
Have you taken a class in physics or statics? Did you pass College Algebra? 

Neil,

Why is it so difficult to explain how you reconcile geocentrism with modern science? You have not shown that modern science is geocentric.

.
First thing, you've already come out swinging against a strawman. Modern science is absolutely NOT "heliocentric."
.
Modern astronomers, astrophysicists and mathematicians have long ago abandoned heliocentrism.
.
Maybe you missed the memo.
.

Modern science has only very recently hinted at moving away from heliocentric theory, and that, only in part. They do not (always) say that the sun is at the center of the universe.  Big hairy deal!  They still pretend without proof that earth is a whirling, spinning ball hurtling through space at hoo wee! 1000, 67,000 550,000 and 1,000,000 mph, 4 different directions at the same time!    So, that's basically heliocentrism.  They do not say earth is a stationary ball in the middle of the universe.  Why?  Because that model doesn't work.  Without the daily turn on its axis, how do sun and moon work to bring about day and night and seasons?  And, if it does spin, that denies not only Scripture but the Church who quite specifically condemned a moving earth. Further, the distances to stars, sun and moon are identical in all pagan globe theories which deny the existence of the firmament clearly described in Scripture, not to mention the water above the firmament.  In addition science doesn't even address the windows of heaven that opened to bring about Noah's Great Flood.  Modern geocentrism is a nonsensical prevarication based on the heliocentric model and chock full of pagan garbage.  Robert Sungenis and buddy Rick Delano are probably modern shills backed by NASA. The last statement is a guess, but I'd personally bank some decent money on it.       

Don't waste your time,  Meg.

Modern science teaches a heliocentric SOLAR SYSTEM. 

FULL STOP.

Neil is a liar. There is no memo.

Neil also NOT a geocentrist.

Oh, so I'm unqualified to ask you the question. 

.
I didn't say that. You can ask all you want but it seems you're not going to understand my answer.
.

So.....in order for you answer the question about how it is that you reconcile geocentrism with modern science, first you have to find out how "qualified" I am. That's hilarious Neil. 

.
I'm so glad you find this entertaining. Have fun, then.
.

You obviously just don't want to address the question in a direct and honest manner.

.
So in your ignorance you presume to pass judgment on what you can't comprehend. Okaaaay.
.

 Maybe Smedley is right. 

.
Think again. Smedley is wrong with practically every sentence he writes, so this would be no surprise.
.

You aren't actually a geocentrist, as you have said you are in the past. Geocentrism, in the Sungenis model, is dumb anyway, and makes about as much sense as heliocentrism. 

.
As you wish. Carry on. 

You frequently post supposedly scientific information that you want flat-earthers to read and consider, and some of it is quite technical and difficult to understand. And yet you won't answer this question, because you think that I might not understand your answer.

Does this mean that you will no longer post anything that may be in any way complicated or difficult to understand?

.
When I want to see something complicated or difficult to understand all I need to do is look at any of the explanations that flat-earthers provide for things like why do the sun and moon appear the same size as the move across the sky, or why can we see them descend over the horizon at over 80 degrees from the horizontal? 
And I know I have the necessary background to discuss these things, plus I can see them contradict themselves with each sentence.
.
On the other hand, I have been misunderstood so often that perhaps I'm learning a lesson.
When you try to explain something to someone who doesn't have the necessary background you get nowhere.
And when I have tried to provide the background all the flat-earthers can do is heckle, deride and jump topic.
So that tells me that flat-earthers do not want to learn anything.
.
Prove me wrong by being willing to take the first step. Are you willing to take the first step or not?
.