It seems to me one could "recalibrate" any hypothesis that way.
"There's an elephant in the back yard."
"Yeah, big gray thing, plain as the nose on your face."
"But if you look in the back yard, you'll see there is no big gray thing."
"OK, let me recalibrate the theory. The elephant's there, all right, but it's not gray, it's invisible."
"So the evidence for an elephant being there ... is that we see what we'd see if an elephant wasn't there?"
In fact, instead of "recalibrating" your hypothesis one bit at a time to hide from the evidence piecemeal, you could do it in one fell swoop by saying this:
The Earth stays still, but contrives to do so in such a way that whenever we put this hypothesis to the test we see exactly what we'd see if it was moving.
There, that's the whole of geocentrism done. You don't need any more arguments. It covers all the evidence against geocentrism found in the past, and all the evidence that will be found against it in the future. And yet this will not convince anyone who doesn't already have a strong religious prejudice in favor of being convinced, just as the "invisible elephant" excuse would leave you cold unless you were really desperate to believe in the elephant.