are you actually saying that heliocentrism is as good a model as our current model of the universe, and is likely to be an accurate representation of the true r

are you actually saying that heliocentrism is as good a model as our current model of the universe, and is likely to be an accurate representation of the true reality? No. We have multiple sources of evidence demonstrating that the earth is not the center of movement for the rest of the universe. If any one of those sources was wrong, it would completely overturn entire areas of physics. We didn't know what the Earth looked like from space in the past. It wasn't until the mid-to-late 1960s that we knew what it looked like in detail. And that came from direct imaging. Nothing about that was "convention" or relative. The existence of seasons? I mean, sure, seasons aren't perfectly well-defined things that last 3 months and then turn into the next season. I live in the bay area- late October is "summer" and our winters are wet, with no snow. So, clearly, there is some aspect of convention in deciding on 4 seasons- but you can look at plots of temperature over time, and other metrics, and clearly see that there are variations that correspond to what we call seasons. Not interesting at all to argue about this. The earth rotating around the sun happens due to the objective laws of physics, not convention. You can do centripital to centrifugal conversions and relative frames of motion all you want, but we have wide range of evidence that the sun does not rotate around the earth.