That's fine; it's easy to explain all sorts of celestial phenomenon using the geocentric model. The problem is that there's no single way to explain all observable phenomenon.
So you can, for example, explain and even predict the moons movement, but the same methods can't predict how stars move, hence the idea of 12+ celestial spheres which the stars are attached to. By the same token, the methods of predicting stars geocentrically can't explain the moon or sun.
The heliocentric model explains everything with the same methodology. That's how we know that it's closer to the ultimate truth than the geocenteic model (no absolutes in science).
It's the same thing as Neutonian physics explaining reality at our scale, but not at either microscopic or macroscopic levels; it's still useful (because it's so simple) but we know there is a more correct model, even though we don't yet know what it is.
That's fine; it's easy to explain all sorts of celestial phenomenon using the geocentric model. The problem is that there's no single way to explain all observable phenomenon.
So you can, for example, explain and even predict the moons movement, but the same methods can't predict how stars move, hence the idea of 12+ celestial spheres which the stars are attached to. By the same token, the methods of predicting stars geocentrically can't explain the moon or sun.
The heliocentric model explains everything with the same methodology. That's how we know that it's closer to the ultimate truth than the geocenteic model (no absolutes in science).
It's the same thing as Neutonian physics explaining reality at our scale, but not at either microscopic or macroscopic levels; it's still useful (because it's so simple) but we know there is a more correct model, even though we don't yet know what it is.