The simplest equation is one that can be completed without the use of assumptions, correct?
Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory.
You used the EXACT same argument in another thread.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18114.msg319535#msg319535 Even if Occam's Razor were anything more than a philosophical principal (which it is not), posting the same argument TWICE does not increases it's validity. However being that you somehow seem to think it does...
From response to previous (same) argument (addition to the RE side):
Occam's Razor simply states that all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. Put another way one should not make more assumptions than the minimum required. I'm sorry but your application of this simple logical principal is flawed.
Which scenario is the simplest (least assumptions). Assuming Occam's razor can in any way be used as evidence for any hypothesis...
1) The earth is a sphere orbiting our sun , it spinning on its axis with a tilt of 23.5 degrees.
one "assumption" that when applied with mathematics explains the observed characteristics of the sun, the moon, stars, day/night cycle, lunar cycle (including lunar and solar eclipse). And how the planets when observed from earth appear to "loop" over their own paths in an otherwise impossible manner.
Edit: Even if you were just to assume that earth exists and behaves much in the same way as any other planet (spherical, orbit the sun, have moons, impact craters, atmospheres, weather patterns, day and night cycles, volcanic activity, geographic north and south poles...)
2) The earth is flat.
Must assume:
a) The sun moves in a circular orbit around an undefined center of gravitation.
b) That the radius of that orbit changes to cause seasons (and in doing so speeds up/slows down to maintain 24 hour days)
c) Either the planets really do follow a "looping" orbital path. Or somehow like with RE only appear to (RE explains how).
d) Must assume Universal acceleration of the earth upwards while still relying on gravitation to explain how at high altitude acceleration towards the earths surface is reduced. (also apparently earth has no mass to cause its own gravitation...)
e) some unknown secondary object casting a shadow on the moon and passing in front of the sun to explain eclipse phenomenon.
f) there are separate sets of stars over various regions of the earth surface to explain observable star patterns.
The largest assumption of them all would have to be that all photos from space ( and many from earth such as rotary star movements) are faked and that the entire concept of a spherical earth and ALL related science ( physics, astronomy, seismology, cosmology, etc.) are part of a global conspiracy spanning hundreds of years to make the earth "appear" to be a sphere.
So which view makes the least assumptions again?