You don't seem to be interested in reading it.
Why I should read about it, if it wasn't able to help you in answer concerning the solar models comparison? I want to see some practical results first.
Anyway, it's apparent, heliocentric model was chosen by just by it's capability to explain things logically, not formally. After all, at the time of Galileo heliocentric model wasn't enable to compute anything: both masses of planets and Sun, both gravitational constant value were not known. It was just a science, who delayed the acceptance of heliocentric model, i.e. the mainstream astronomers, like Tycho de Brahe and others.
The memo is, just the logical reasoning is fundamental part of "scientific standards", not the formal math. Theory like string theory can be full of math - but the single logical argument can refute it. This is the way, which science is using for its reasoning at the end. If so, why we aren't using a logics from the very beginning of scientific theories development? Why should be every mainstream theory based on ad-hoced postulates and formal equations?
It is nonsense to the dog.
Should we use the stance of dogs as a relevant criterion of validity scientific theories, after then? If some dog is barking to new ideas, should we care about it? You decide...
