Geocentrist Robert Sungenis would like to convince you that a whole panoply of modern scientists “allow for” his strict Geocentrism, the view that the Earth is the immobile center of the universe. But physicists writing from the vantage of General Relativity hold that any point in the universe can be treated “as if” it’s the center of all things. It is only to that extent that they “allow for” a kind of “geocentrism” – but then they would also allow for moon-centrism and Alpha Centauri-centrism and tip-of-my-nose-centrism. Since General Relativity inherently excludes the very concepts of an absolute center and absolute motion, these scientists most certainly do not allow for the strict Geocentrism espoused by Sungenis and Company. The whole claim is built on a dishonest equivocation (for more, see “Equivocation, Thy Name is Geocentrism”).
Albert Einstein states this explicitly in a quote which the geocentrists regularly crop in order to wrench one phrase out of context (unfortunately not uncommon: see “Context Anyone? The (Literally) Incredible Geocentrists Strike Again”). Here’s Einstein:
Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? If this can be done, our troubles will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any CS. The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the Sun is at rest and the Earth moves,’ or ‘the Sun moves and the Earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative motion? This is indeed possible! . . . Our new idea is simple: to build a physics valid for all CS” (A. Einstein and L. Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, The Scientific Book Club and Company Ltd, p.224; my emphasis).
It should go without saying that there is no place for strict Geocentrism in a physics that itself has “no place for absolute but only for relative motion” and that therefore General Relativity does not in any way “allow for” strict Geocentrism. Also, as soon as the neo-geocentrists insist that a immoble Earth is the one, absolute frame of reference of all the motion in the universe then they are compelled to start doing the heavy lifting of showing how their view fits all of the available evidence better than any other view. This they never do. Instead, they act as intellectual parasites who illegitimately grab bits and pieces of whatever they think will them to make their case. Intellectual honesty should compel the neo-geocentrists to stop using this and other quotes from modern scientists who are speaking in the context of General Relativity.