I've answered that question.
No, you haven't.
Instead you provide vague garbage which doesn't actually explain anything.
For example, you boldly claim the phases are caused by an angle and alignment, but fail to explain just what angle you are measuring or how this angle creates the various phases.
You claim the moon is projected, but fail to explain what it is projected on and how, and how this allows everyone to see it the same.
You aren't providing explanations or answers.
You are providing vague BS to avoid the issue.
Compare this to the insane timing required if RE supposedly does the same. The Earth is supposed to orbit the sun while the moon orbits it. Is the moon going to stay in the same phase during all of this orbiting and rotation? No it is not.
There is nothing insane about it.
No, the moon is not going to stay the same phase during all this orbiting and rotating.
Instead, the orbit of the moon around Earth, results in the phase changing, just like we observe.
So you find predictions matching reality to be insane?
Why not be honest, the part you find "insane", is that it doesn't fit your delusional BS.
When sun and moon line up, you have a perfect circle. Go ahead, find a lamp. Make a circle by cupping your hands together. Now move your hands from not in the path above the lamp (new moon), to progressive levels of being in the path. It will slowly go to crescent, then gibbous, then full. Then if you keep moving it will move out. Proven. By shadow puppetry.
No, it wont.
This is very easy to understand and has been explained to you repeatedly.
What you will actually have is a circle being intersected by another circle.
Again, instead of a crescent moon, you would expect the red region in this picture:
More problematic, this means instead of a solar eclipse, we should see a full moon, and as soon as it is away from the sun, we should see a new moon.
So the vast majority of the time, we should see a new moon, i.e. no moon, and then only during when we observe a solar eclipse should we see any other phase.
So you have failed to explain any of it.
Instead you have provided vague BS to pretend you have an answer because you know you cannot explain it.
This is why I say you are spouting vague BS rather than providing an answer.
It is TRIVIAL to see your alleged answer is BS, yet you keep on making it.
And more pathetic deflection from the issue at hand. You must really be scared at your complete inability to explain the moon with how much you need to flee from it and how much BS you need to make up about the RE.
None of the problems demand people who are south of the equator hang like bats or water behaving in a funny way
Nor does the RE.
sun and moon being two different sizes but yet having a near perfect line up during an eclipse.
As opposed to having them magically changing size to produce both annular and total solar eclipses, and requiring all sorts of extra BS to make it work.
There is really nothing more special about having the ratio be roughly 400 than having the ratio be roughly 1.
The difference is that the ratio of 400 actually works to explain what is observed.
So whatever those problems are, I accept them. I'll be glad to explain any problems you claim are part of the system.
The problem is that you can't explain anything.
So you happily accept a model which can't explain anything, all to cling to a fantasy of a flat Earth so you can pretend you are important.
And to a large portion, the RE doesn't explain what is witnessed either.
Yet you can't explain any of that.
We don't witness the sun and moon being grossly different in size
We don't witness the size directly, not unless you want to accept the people who have gone to the moon, and the probes sent near the sun.
Instead, we observe their relative positions and how it varies in a manner that clearly demonstrates they are very different in size.
In both cases, you don't witness it.
And notice your dishonesty, you switch from RE doesn't explain what is witnessed, to something that isn't witnessed to pretend there is a problem with the model.
What is actually witnessed, the thing you are implicitly appealing to, is that the sun and moon both have an angular size of roughly 0.5 degrees.
And that observation is explained by the RE model.
Can you actually provide an example of something that is witnessed that is not explained by the RE model?
Or can you just pull this dishonest bait and switch BS?
nor does there seem to be a difference between the sun being the subject of orbit (not orbiting) and the moon orbiting.
Again, notice how this isn't something witnessed not being explained?
Well one big difference is the orbital period.
But ultimately, if you are going from visual observations of just the sun and Earth, you aren't going to be able to tell the difference.
You need something else.
And for the solar system, we have all the planets.
The motions of the planets makes pretty much no sense at all if we have Earth fixed.
But if we have the sun as the centre of the solar system, with all the planets orbiting the sun, then the paths do make sense.
So the difference is not in the visual observations, but in the explanatory power.
Since any stage hand knows the difference from an entire stage set to slowly turn while a light is fixed on them, and a pivoting light, you're gonna have to explain why they look the same.
No, you are going to have to explain why they should appear different. Especially considering your example is complete crap which in no way reflects the issue.
Try having your pathetic model actually match the solar system, where for both models you have a series of stars in the background very far away, effectively stationary (unless you want to appeal to parallax their motion is insignificant); and then for the HC model a stationary light in the centre, with a viewer circling around it, such that their orientation is not fixed to the circling (i.e. if they were to be looking at a particular background star, that wouldn't change as they circled); vs the GC model where you have a stationary viewer, with the light circling around. Noting that in both cases the light would be a light bulb, not a spotlight.
From a visual POV, assuming the background stars are far enough away, you can't tell the difference.
If you think you should be able to tell the difference, explain how.
Again, we have the RE model, which accurately explains so much of reality; vs your delusional garbage, which pretty much can't explain anything. You can't even explain something as simple as the phases of the moon and need to resort to continually spouting so much delusional BS.