Geocentric vs. relativistic time dilation

Here is a quote from Wikipedia.com: Time dilation can be inferred from the observed fact of the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Just as accurately, the above quote could read: Time dilation can be inferred from the observed fact of light's unique speed relative the absolute Geocentric reference frame. 

That's right. Time dilation does not belong to relativity. I've posted a new YouTube video which explains how there are absolutely no Einsteinian concepts involved in time dilation. It is merely an a-relativistic theory which Einstein adopts for his own theory by declaring time dilation to be symmetric, or relative.

Time dilation can be derived exactly according to the same equations and diagrams used by relativists everywhere. 

GPS corrections, particle accelerators, cosmic ray muons - all easily predicted from within an absolute Geocentric reference frame by the exact same method Einstein uses, with no sleight of hand and no mathematical corrections. 

These are The Undeniable Facts:

1)   A relativist can only say that Earth is in relative motion. If you say something, such as the Earth, is definitely in motion, then you are in violation of relativity.
2)   We, the observers on Earth, are at the center of our own observable universe. This is what the empirical evidence says. Both relativists and absolute Geocentrists acknowledge this.
3)   Absolute Geocentrists say that our (we, the observers on Earth) observable universe is all that there is to the universe. There is nothing beyond our observable universe.
4)   If our own observable universe is the entire universe, and we are at the center of it, the Earth can be empirically shown (interferometer experiments) to be at absolute rest. Therefore if our own observable universe is all that there is, Earth is immobile at the center of the universe.
5)   According to standard Big Bang theory, anything beyond our (we, the observers on Earth) observable universe will be forever unobservable to us due to the expansion of space.
6)   Things that are unobservable do not exist as far as science is concerned. Therefore anything beyond our observable universe does not exist as far as science is concerned. How could it, since the ability to observe something is a requirement of the scientific method?
7)   If 4) is correct then relativity is false, because Earth is a preferred, special reference frame, defining an absolute rest frame.
8)   The only way 4) can be false is if there is a larger universe beyond our (we, the observers on Earth) observable universe.
9)   Therefore, both relativity and the Copernican principle require the existence of a universe beyond our observable universe, i.e. both require something that is beyond the scope of the scientific method and rational scientific inquiry.
10)  Mainstream science claims that there is a larger universe beyond our observable universe. They MUST claim this, because both relativity and the Copernican principle require it (see 9)) Google “the observable universe vs. the entire universe.”
11)  Relativity is presented to the public as scientific fact.
12)  Therefore, relativity is pseudo-science.
13)  The only options available to us are absolute Geocentrism or relativistic geocentrism.
14)  Relativity is a pseudo-science, therefore the only option available to strict adherents to science is absolute Geocentrism.

Earth is at absolute rest at the center of the universe as far as science is concerned. Relativists are the kooks, not the Geocentrists. Case closed, class dismissed.

Post 4

In dealing with reference frames, and claiming that no reference frame is preferred over any other, that is, that all reference frames are relative and there is no absolute reference frame: if we, say, choose a rocket in uniform motion as a reference frame, there is obviously space external to the rocket, so how can we not say that the rocket’s reference frame is inferior to that external space? The rocket is demonstrably, entirely contained by that external space, so the reference frame attached to that external space must necessarily be superior to that of the rocket. By this reasoning, since any possible reference frame we might choose is contained within the universe, then all reference frames must be inferior to the universe as a whole. Therefore, there is an absolute frame of reference that comprises the universe as a whole, and any measurements made relative to an inferior reference frame are correct in thought only, and we will be making an error if we attribute any real, physical significance to such measurements. It doesn’t matter that we cannot pinpoint the universal reference frame. This inability to pinpoint it does not mean we may ignore its existence in physical theory.