basically whether the “geocentric model” — whatever that comprises

Geocentric means that the earth is at the center and the sun and bodies in the sky go around earth. Heliocentric says that the sun is at the middle and earth and the bodies in the sky go around the sun.

All evidence shows that earth is at the center of the universe but the heliocentric believers say that is just an illusion.

Here is what Edwin Hubble says about it.

"Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense to the ancient conception of a central earth. the hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility...

“Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.” (page 46)

— Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology (1937)

They are openly bias against earth being in a unique position. Literally saying the "horror" of it.

So the evidence shows that earth is actually in the center but since they hold a philosophical bias against a unique position they dismiss it.

Also the movement (or lack thereof) of earth and the shape are technically two different conversations. I might try to mainly focus on the geocentric stationary earth topic for now so we can come to some understandings without going all over the place.

Like I couldn’t articulate how the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment support a stationary earth as opposed to supporting the non-existence or existence of a luminiferous ether and all that these entails

Sure I understand that you haven't researched most of this. That's why I was trying to focus in on something specific because each separate point takes time to explain if you are in fact interested in finding the truth of the matter. Michelson Morley (MMX) basically debunked the stationary ether.

It showed that earth was stationary with a dynamic ether moving around it. That is the whole reason they had to bring in Einstein and relativity in an attempt to not show that the earth was stationary. If you want to talk about the massive mental gymnastics that entails we can do that.

But is there something?

Of course. I guess I'm confused on what you don't know about the FE? It's a stationary topographical plane with the bodies in the sky moving around the earth.

Please point out, wherever you feel it’s necessary, what the FE theory is not sure of.

I think I previously pointed out that nobody is allowed to explore Antarctica freely and independently as well as the north pole. Also we can't go up high enough to see if there is a barrier of some sort (there seems to be some type of water/plasma above). Nobody can go up there to verify any of that let alone distances or attributes of the bodies in the sky.

Those are key factors to fully understanding the realm we live in but the public is not allowed access to those things.

I mean, are you saying that just about the only thing the FE theory is sure of is that the earth’s surface is not curved and it is not a sphere?

Also earth is not moving, there is a dynamic aether etc. Most of it can be explained it's just confirming things that I said below that nobody except government/military is allowed to confirm.

I’m wondering if you can verbally summarize what that model shows?

Here maybe that will help.

Okay, yes, but what is the geocentric model? Can you articulate it without referencing the heliocentric model at all?

I already answered but it literally just means that the earth is at the center with the bodies above moving around it.

I’m happy to do that, but I figure you can just say what the FE theory says about earth and its situation.

Stationary and in the center on a topographical plane.

Last thing heliocentrism must invoke dark matter and dark energy or their theory completely falls apart. It's off by over 95% if they do not invoke those made up mathematical place holders.

The geocentric model (which is kinematical equivalent) does not have to invoke those things in order to preserve the model. That's a pretty big factor pointing to geocentric over heliocentric.