Are you saying whatever you mean by Geocentrism disagrees with the entire list?
No
Do you disagree with the last sentence about what cosmology cannot tell us?
No, but that didn't stop them from imagining the Multiverse and Boltzmann Brains: cosmologies that tell us where the “dice” came from, who rigged the roll, and why.
Who said Big Bang cosmology has problems as you describe?
Every Big Bang cosmologist, but they don't call them problems. There's the Horizon Problem which necessitated the creation of the Inflation theory, and the Expansion Problem that requires more energy than the observable universe can yield, the speed of galactic rotation which requires much more mass than is observed to hold the galaxies together.
96% of the universe has to be made up of energy and matter that is completely undetectable and has no other effect except to hold everything together in the Big Bang model. They call it dark matter and dark energy. The Big Bang cosmology needs it, so it must be there.
Who claims a centered earth would solve said problems?
Two notable physicists: John Hartnett and Russell Humphreys. They both have books called Starlight and Time. Hartnett both specifically stated that their models do not require dark matter or energy. Hartnett goes in depth about the Hubble constant and other such stuff, and he takes pains to make the material comprehensible to the uninitiated. Humphreys was the first I read that told me about the assumptions behind
Jason Lisle works for Answers in Genesis, and isn't a Geocentrist, but he calls himself a Galactocentrist. Our Milky Way is at the center, rejecting the acentric model of Relativity.
There are more, and I haven't created a bibliography and won't. You can search the reputable Creation science sites like Answers in Genesis and The Institute in Creation Research.
There is no "geocentrism site" I go too. When I Google Geocentrism or the Geocentric Model, I find mostly criticisms and mocking of vocal geocentrists, but I read them anyway and go to the primary sources. I found that both apostles of modern physics, Einstein and Hawking will say that there is no advantage of any model over the other, and neither can be proved. (I've also found those presenting evidence that Einstein was wrong.)
I think the most remarkable thing I've stumbled across is the CMB map and how the dipoles and quadrupoles are aligned with the earth's ecliptic and equinox planes. The alignment is there. No one disputes it and science has dubbed the arrangement as the Axis of Evil, because it violates the Cosmological Principle (the acentric, boundless view of the universe) and plots the earth in the middle. The CMB was mapped three times, billions of dollars spent to verify the findings and eliminate foreground contamination as a cause of the apparent structure thereof. It's there. It has a structure, and that means direction in space, a frame of reference where absolute motion can be measured.
Am I convinced of the geocentric model? Not totally, but I've found that the motion of the earth is not a scientific certainty, as we've been told growing up. Ptolemy may have been right. And science hasn't proven Calvin and Luther wrong, and I no longer feel that the geocentric language of the Bible needs explaining in relative terms to make it palatable or to give me credibility to atheistic cosmologists, like is being done with the days of Creation.
Please post a link to your Geocentric cosmology that explains how it works.
Like I said. I don't have one.
But you don't have to learn about Relativity, except to be able to answer the evidence that is commonly tossed up like the Coriolis Effect and the Foucault Pendulum, and to understand that the General and Special theories contradict one another, most notably with the supposed speed limit of the universe. General relativity says that in strong gravitational or inertial forces light and bodies can travel many orders of magnitude faster than the limit imposed by the Special theory, and other such things. Who cares?
Nothing depends upon the heliocentric model, except philosophy.That is all. And that's no surprise, because the reason the stars were created were to be read from earth to understand times and seasons. Adam was not given a telescope. The stars have meaning when viewed from the surface of the earth. That doesn't mean we can't send probes and such to look closer, just like doctors aren't forbidden to cut a man open, but that doesn't mean man was intended to walk about with his organs in view.
Two years ago, I was talking about Martin Luther. We owe a great debt to Luther and Calvin for the liberties we enjoy in the West, and it's liberty in the Christian world view that put our technological advancement in warp speed. My daughter, who is picking up on liberal philosophies in her studies, said, "Luther opposed Galileo. He said the Bible describes sun in motion, not the earth, so the Catholics were right to arrest him." There you have it. The Bible is geocentric, so you can't trust it fully. Case closed. (Ironically, this was a few short months after I had mentioned how neat it was to be on a world speeding through space in a circuit around the sun. And, ironically, her response was, it would be better if it felt that way. I had to concede. Oh for a TARDIS.)
Well, the case with Luther and Galileo wasn't exactly as she had been told, but then I thought, How does one go about neutralizing the geocentric objections without having to become a theoretical physicist? I'd read Hartnett and Humphreys years prior to this, but that was because I wanted to know how they answered the puzzle of distant starlight in a young universe. So then I asked, what do we have that is of any real use to mankind in any facet of his life, that is dependent upon the knowledge that it is the earth that is moving, and not the sun? And there is none.
