Geocentrism

You are right on the fact that, if relativity is wrong, there is no reason to believe that light speed is constant. Except, relativity is true. The following are experiments that prove the constancy of the speed of light (to be more accurate, they are abstracts of articles on this topic):
https://journals.aps.org......
https://journals.aps.org......
Here are two articles on the constancy of light speed too:
https://www.google.gr......
http://www.emc2-explained.info......
There are also many experiments that prove relativity, most important of which being the prediction of the changes in Mercury's orbit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org......
Note that there are many more experiments concerning light speed constancy and relativity, which you can find through a little research. I only mentioned few of them. I would suggest you looked into it using Google's scientific articles search.

The Wang, or rather Sagnac, experiment, was quite an intriguing case. The problem with this experiment is, it is conducted on a rotating system, which is considered a non-inertial frame.
From what I read, though, apart from it being a non-inertial frame, it is also a matter of interpretation. For a more elaborate and illuminating explanation, please read the following:
http://www.physicsinsights.org......

If I were able to explain why and how do quanta obey quantum instead of Newtonian physics, I would be giving lectures in universities and scientific institutes instead of debating on an online website. For now, there is no "why". There is just "is" or "is not". Your analogy is irrelevant because, as said before, you presented motion ruled by quantum physics to happen in the same way as motion in the Newtonian physics.

Never did I say that redshifts disprove geocentrism. I merely mentioned that the opposite does not happen either. Despite that, redshifts can be used as evidence supporting the theory of the big bang.
Moreover, concerning the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - CMBR, please read the following.
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org......
This article provides a detailed explanation of the unisotropies of the CMBR, more sophisticated than I could have written here limited to use only 10,000 characters.
For more proof of the big bang, see "observable evidence" in"https://en.m.wikipedia.org......

As for your explanation of the Coriolis effect, I find it funny how you debunked your own claim that the earth does not spin. To explain myself, to say that the universe rotates around a stationary earth in a certain direction is exactly the same as saying that the earth spins relative to the stationary universe towards the opposite direction. Hence, your claim itself suggests that the earth spins, contrary to your initial statements.
The above proved that whether the earth spins or not is a matter of frame of reference. What separates your model of the universe from mine is the claim that the earth is positioned at the center of the universe and is absolutely motionless relative to it (well, if it was not motionless, it would not be able to maintain it's position).
I would like to point out here that there is a mistake of great significance in the Geocentric model, concerning the orbit of the Sun around the earth. I will elaborate on that, but first I am to explain a few things to avoid misunderstandings.
First of all, the geocentric model - referring to the part of it that describes our solar system - is practically absolutely right and the same as the heliocentric one, in the way you presented it. By looking at the second image you sent me, one can tell that it depicts the solar system of the heliocentric model, viewing it relatively to the earth, making the latter seem stationary.
One more point I will make and which should be remarked is that, by what you said earlier, namely "the image is not drawn to scale", referring to the size of the Sun, it is probably safe to assume that the Sun's mass and size are the same in both models (if not, you will have to explain in a plausible way the planets' orbits, the Aurora borealis, the shifts in the orbit of Mercury and many more phenomena whose explanation hinges on that). To be exact, you cannot deny that the Sun's mass is higher than the earth's for various reasons. I hope that you understand and agree with me on that.
To get to the point, through some quick calculations I found that the Sun's gravitational force on earth, which equals the earth's gravitational force on the Sun, is approximately F=35*10^21 N, meaning that the Sun, in your frame of reference, revolves around the earth at a speed great enough to maintain its orbit, thanks to inertia. There would be nothing wrong with that, unless you claim that the earth is stationary and located in the exact center of the universe, or, to rephrase, motionless relative to the universe, being in its center. With this, the problem arises; the Sun revolving around a motionless earth is impossible, for its mass is way higher than the earth's. I will explain with an example:
Imagine that you are in a certain spot in space, holding a rope to which an elephant is tied. The elephant is revolving around you, tied with the rope, in a great speed. Trust me, you will not be able to maintain your initial position, for the elephant's inertial force, schematically pointing out of the circular orbit, will be greater than yours, since it is proportional to the elephant's great mass, which too is higher than yours. One could claim that the elephant revolves around you or that you revolve around the elephant, as it is a matter of frame of reference. But it would be impossible for you to maintain your position, which could, for example, be the center of the universe. The only way this could happen is with a force that for some reason would keep you in your initial position, but there is no such force except inertia. That is why the Geocentric model is, too, impossible.

As you requested, I will not use any new arguments or rebuttals in this round. Despite that, I am still going to make some clarifications on my previous arguments. I believe that there are some things I should point out.

The experiments I mentioned do account as evidence of the speed of light, as much as the thought experiments in the articles do. Indeed, this contradicts the result of the Wang experiment, but I already linked you to an article that elaborates on how the Wang and Sagnac experiments can go along with relativity. The claim that the frame of reference was not inertial was an additional argument. I will have to admit, though, that I am still looking into it, and I recognise the Wang experiment as a bold argument against my claims.

Indeed, Einstein admitted that. But he also said that Gerber's theory of gravity was wrong, as proven later by other physicists. It was all mentioned in the Wikipedia article you linked as your source.
"Basic concept
Based on the electrodynamic laws of Wilhelm Eduard Weber, Carl Friedrich Gau", and Bernhard Riemann, between 1870-1900 many scientists tried to combine gravitation with a finite propagation speed and tried to derive the correct value for the Perihelion shift of Mercury's orbit. In 1890 Maurice L"vy succeeded in doing so by combining the laws of Weber and Riemann, whereby the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light in his theory. However, because the basic laws of Weber and others were wrong (for example, Weber's law was superseded by Maxwell's equations), those hypotheses were rejected.

A variation of those superseded theories (albeit not directly based on Weber's theory) was the one of Gerber, which he developed in 1898 and 1902.
So Gerber was able to calculate a speed of gravity of ca. 305 000 km/s, slightly more than the speed of light.

Controversy
It was noted by the Einstein- and relativity critic Ernst Gehrcke in 1916, that this formula is mathematically identical to Albert Einstein's formula (1915) for general relativity.
So Gehrcke initiated a reprint of Gerber's 1902-paper in the Annalen der Physik in 1917, where he questioned the priority of Einstein and tried to prove a possible Plagiarism by him. However, according to Albrecht F"lsing, Klaus Hentschel and Roseveare, those claims were rejected, because soon after Gerber's paper was reprinted, scientists like Hugo von Seeliger, Max von Laue published some papers, where it was claimed that Gerber's theory is inconsistent and his formula is not the consequence of his premises. And Einstein wrote in 1920:[A 8]

"Mr. Gehrcke wants to make us believe that the Perihelion shift of Mercury can be explained without the theory of relativity. So there are two possibilities. Either you invent special interplanetary masses. [...] Or you rely on a work by Gerber, who already gave the right formula for the Perihelion shift of Mercury before me. The experts are not only in agreement that Gerber"s derivation is wrong through and through, but the formula cannot be obtained as a consequence of the main assumption made by Gerber. Mr. Gerber"s work is therefore completely useless, an unsuccessful and erroneous theoretical attempt. I maintain that the theory of general relativity has provided the first real explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury. I did not mention the work by Gerber initially, because I did not know about it when I wrote my work on the perihelion motion of Mercury; even if I had been aware of it, I would not have had any reason to mention it."
In the recent past, Roseveare argued that Gerber's derivation is unclear, however, he claimed to have found the way by which Gerber possibly found his result (although Roseveare's derivation was criticized as well). More importantly, Roseveare showed that Gerber's theory is in conflict with experience: the value for the deflection of light in the gravitational field of the sun is too high in Gerber's theory, and if the relativistic mass is considered, also Gerber's prediction for the perihelion advance is wrong."
For the equations, see the Wikipedia article.
Not to mention that I linked you to more than one experiments that prove general relativity.

As I told you, saying that the universe rotates is the same as saying that the earth spins. Until one frame of reference is proven to be more right than the other, both claims are equally right. Hence, one can correctly claim that the earth spins.

To reach a conclusion, on behalf of both of us, I will end my arguments with the following.
Arguments in favour of:
Pro.
a. The Michelson-Morley experiment, necessarily supported by
b. The Wang experiment, contradicting (or disproving?) relativity,
c. The theoretical rotation of the universe

Con.
a. An unexplainable force is needed for the Geocentric model to be true,
b. Experiments and thought experiments that support relativity and a possible interpretation of the Wang experiment (see the article),
c. The theoretical spinning of the earth

If you notice something wrong with the above or disagree, please mention it in the comments.

To the voter:
Before you cast your vote, be sure to check the rest of this debate. This is important for the voting being objective. That aside, please share your views on this debate and state the factors that lead you to that decision.
Thank you.
🌎