The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose.(Ecclesiastes 1:5) NKJV
Occam’s razor is used to reject something which we look at everyday in favor of something which no one has ever seen.
Let’s dig down into that statement: Occam’s razor is a philosophical tenet which is used to justify rejecting the Geocentrospheric cosmological model which we look at everyday, in favor of a heliocentric system which no one has ever seen because no one has ever visited the sun.
Heliocentric or Geocentrospheric?
- IF you were on the Sun you’d be observing heliocentricity,
- SINCE you’re not, you’re on the Earth, you’re observing Geocentrosphericity.
The idea behind Occam’s razor is that the hypothesis with the fewest assumption is the most likely to be true, or something along those lines. Let’s consider what assumptions must be made in the heliocentric model. It starts with Copernicus who explained the mental gymnastics necessary to imagine the cosmos from the frame of reference of the sun.
- There is no one center of all the celestial circles or spheres.
- The center of the earth is not the center of the universe, but only the center towards which heavy bodies move and the center of the lunar sphere.
- All the spheres surround the sun as if it were in the middle of them all, and therefore the center of the universe is near the sun.
- The ratio of the earth’s distance from the sun to the height of the firmament (outermost celestial sphere containing the stars) is so much smaller than the ratio of the earth’s radius to its distance from the sun that the distance from the earth to the sun is imperceptible in comparison with the height of the firmament.
- Whatever motion appears in the firmament arises not from any motion of the firmament, but from the earth’s motion. The earth together with its circumjacent elements performs a complete rotation on its fixed poles in a daily motion, while the firmament and highest heaven abide unchanged.
- What appear to us as motions of the sun arise not from its motion but from the motion of the earth and our sphere, with which we revolve about the sun like any other planet. The earth has, then, more than one motion.
- The apparent retrograde and direct motion of the planets arises not from their motion but from the earth’s. The motion of the earth alone, therefore, suffices to explain so many apparent inequalities in the heavens.
These are all assumptions and none of them are self-evident. It’s like, you can imagine that you’re on the bridge of the star ship Enterprise if you want to, no one’s going to stop you. Popular science (SciPop) went on from that point to develop enough rationale to prove that you’re on the bridge of the Enterprise, even though you aren’t.
The endeavor runs into a lot of obstacles, and we have to tackle problems with the model. We’re not on the Enterprise, so how do we make it seem as if, not that we are, but that we could be.
The following list are things that have to be resolved. This is inductive rationalization necessary to make the heliocentric model theoretically possible. Theory is the scientific word for faith, so each theory is an explanation for the mental gymnastics necessary to rationalize the assumption.
The Additional Assumptions of Heliocentricity
- We can’t believe what we see with our own eyes.
- The mass of the sun is greater than the Earth.
- Stellar parallax in a heliocentric geometry.
- Stars are suns.
- Red shift is a measurement of recession speed.
- Gravity bends space.
- Black holes are real.
- Dark matter exists.
The first set of 7 assumptions has to be multiplied by the second set of 8 to get 56. If you’re wondering why we’re multiplying rather than adding it’s because the system is circular. For instance, Copernicus provided the rationale for how to imagine heliocentricity. If you then produce Copernicus as proof of heliocentricity you just did something called circular reasoning.
However, the system is beset with problems and so we have to induce more rationale to resolve them. Here’s a list of the purported proofs of heliocentricity which are instructions for the mental gymnastics necessary to prove that something isn’t what it actually is.
Purported Proofs of Heliocentricity
|Phenomena or Individuals|
|1||Aberration of starlight|
|3||Angular size of the sun|
|5||Bessel and 61 Cygni|
|6||Bradley and Molyneux|
|7||Citing incorrect Geocentric models|
|10||Doppler and the Voyagers|
|16||Lorentz’ length contraction|
|18||Mass of the sun / Newtonian physics|
|19||Moons of Jupiter|
|20||Phases of Venus|
|21||Procession of the equinoxes|
|23||Redshift / Universe expansion / Hubble Constant|
|24||Relativistic reference frames|
|25||Retrograde / relative motion|
|27||Seasons and weather|
|32||Transit of the ISS during an eclipse|
|33||Transit of Venus|
|34||Variation in the sun’s orbital radius|
It’s vast and intricate, but the entire thing is an inductive rationalization of the premise of heliocentricity, none of it is proof of heliocentricity. Now we take our 56 assumptions and multiply them by the 34 above. We’re up to 1,904. In contrast, here’s what we have to assume in order for the Geocentrospheric system to be true:
The Assumptions of Geocentrosphericity
- We can believe what we see with our own eyes.
How’s that Occam’s razor looking?
Occam’s razor is a philosophical tenet which is the epitome of delusion, the scientific embodiment of willful ignorance, an excuse to ignore the truth whenever it’s inconvenient. It’s a major deity in the atheist pantheon, the subject of a lot of special pleading.– Occam’s razor, definition