He's dodging the question because he can't think of why it would be. It's so obvious but his brain can't work it out.

No, I'm pointing out that a nonsense theory cannot prove a nonsense "fact" based on a nonsense premise. Allow me to describe some basic predicate logic:

Predicate: If a is true, then b is true

a is not true

b is not necessarily true

Predicate: If the orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci, then you can determine the distance using Kepler's Laws

a: The orbit of every planet is not an ellipse with the Sun

b: You cannot necessarily determine the distance using Kepler's Laws

What I have pointed out is that the planets plainly do not travel around the Sun, and the only way to make them appear to do so (outside of the bounds of proper logic) is to use the Doctrine of the Round Earth. In other words, you cannot prove Round Earth Doctrine (i.e., the distance of the planets because of using Kepler's Laws) because Kepler's Laws assume Round Earth Doctrine to begin with. This is simple logic, and I'm surprised it's taking so many posts to clarify.