Mainstream science accepts anything , even poor experiment , which supports the fictitious solar system.
...in the previous post you literally said "The oblate spheroid of Newton was rubbished by the scientists".
I asked for more details and said that if what you claim is true then how come the oblate sphere theory is the prevailing view and now you're just saying scientists accept anything which supports the solar system? But...you just said that scientists didn't accept that.
Posting CGI of planets/sun is evidence of nothing.
Claiming without basis that the photos are CGI isn't evidence either. It's a baseless claim. If you have evidence of fakery then please present it.
The planets and our moon do not exhibit the reflective properties of spherical objects (scattering of light resulting in a hotspot) lit from a distant source
A hotspot is a property of light reflected from a smooth curved surface. No-one is claiming the moon's surface is smooth.
Here's a photo I took of the moon.
As you can see, I don't have any fancy equipment, just a relatively cheap digital camera with a 16x optical zoom.
Even with that though you can see that the moon is being illuminated by a light source. The phase and the shadows on the craters show that.
Why would a self-illuminating object have phases? How would the shadows be cast like that?
The phases, shadows and the way those shadows change as the phase (and therefore angle between the earth, moon and sun) changes demonstrate the moon is being illuminated.
The outer planets exhibit no characteristics suggestive of reflection from a sphere lit by a distant sun
Yes they do. Shadows cast on them.
Inner planets are small moons of the local sun (Brahe)
The solar system model was introduced without any supporting evidence . A fact which is always ignored.
Well, no it wasn't. The evidence was the retrograde motion of the planets. That is best explained by a heliocentric model with us and the other planets orbiting the sun.
And it's ironic you say that it was introduced without supporting evidence when your claim about the inner planets and a local sun is presented without any supporting evidence. If you have any evidence to back up that claim then please present it.
Researching subjects yourself is the best way to form your own views.
Given your views that is patently not the case. You seem to overestimate your ability to understand this stuff.
There has to be a sensible middle ground between blind acceptance and thinking you can research and understand everything yourself.