the main problem with using Occam's Razor as an arguement comparing Theories, is, its Relative.
the idea of everything moving up at a constant acceleration, sounds pretty simple compared to everything has a gravitational pull according to its size and that pull changes dependant on distance, size of the other object, and the pull of potentially hundreds of other objects near it.
Does that make Occam's Razor favor FE Acceleration over RE Gravity? Maybe. sounds relative to how you look at it to me.
If you take either theory at face value and compare them, as you have just done, then it is relative.
When you look at the complexity of each side's explanation, which are based on the same phenomena that we observe here on earth, then the FE side is far more complex.
Gravitational force, for example, is well documented, observable, and has fixed principles. These principles are that the gravitational force between two masses is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them squared.
One huge assumption of the FE theory, on the other hand, is that there is a force called 'dark energy' (which has nothing to do with the dark energy referred to in the Big Bang theory) that has completely unknown properties. It has been invented for the sole purpose of covering a gap in the theory.
Tell me, which theory is based on fewer assumptions? (assumptions are based on faith, not observable evidence.)Let me list some of the assumptions of the Flat Earth model:
1) 'Dark Energy'
2) Earth being an anomaly to every pattern we can observe in the universe
3) Every single picture of the earth from space, and everything else having to do with NASA has been an elaborate hoax.
4) The entire world set aside their differences to fool the masses.
5) Sun acting as a spotlight, when no other star we have observed acts in such a way.
6) An ice wall somehow encloses our atmosphere.
7) The sun, moon, and stars are also accelerating with the earth, even though earth supposedly doesn't act the same as them.
8)From the FAQ: "The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles)"
9)Also from the FAQ regarding sunrises: "It's a perspective effect. Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away." I just noticed that this completely contradicts evidence observable with the naked eye. The sun does not shrink, it disappears behind the horizon. So this assumption is not only made without evidence, it is made even in the presence of easily observable contradictory evidence.
There are many more, but no more are coming to me at the moment.
Well, I look up and I see a lot of bright burning objects called stars too, but then I noticed the earth wasn't on fire.
Inherent in your argument is a ridiculous assumption. You're assuming that you cannot categorize anything based on its properties. That's like saying you've observed a cat, so when you see a monkey you don't understand why it isn't a cat.
(This analogy isn't perfect, but you understand what I mean. I would elaborate but I have to go somewhere)
Objects have different properties, thus we categorize them and assign a name to them. Earth happens to be a planet, whereas the sun happens to be a star. This is based on their observable properties.
Read up on abstraction, it might do you some good.
I also don't see any other life on other plants, does this mean the earth is devoid of life? ( I borrowed this one from someone in another thread. its a good one.
I addressed this in the post you're referring to. The fact that we cannot observe something does not mean it is not there, nor does it mean that it is there. It is simply unknown.