Once Kepler nailed down the elliptical orbits and the equal-area rule, the position errors went away. That alone did not rule out a geocentric model. An exercise in vector algebra could have transformed the whole thing into one with a stationary Earth, the Sun orbiting it in a Kepler ellipse, and the other planets orbiting the Sun in Kepler ellipses. That would have been an adaptation of Tycho's model, and the resultant apparent motions of the planets would have been the same.

It was the emergence of a universal dynamic theory that did in the geocentric line of thought. Newton's simple theory worked fine with the heliocentric model, but it would have required something really wacko to make the geocentric model work gravitationally.

Back to the OP. Robert Tulip still has not made it clear, at least to my feeble brain, what he means by "geocentrism". He has given hints of wishing to evaluate the possibility of finding relationships between celestial cycles and various phenomena here on Planet Earth. His lines of thought may well be against the mainstream, but I don't think they necessarily are unique to our planet, at least in principle. We cannot rule out the possibility that other places in the cosmos could harbor similar environments subject to similar dynamics.