Occam’s razor

  • 21 Replies
  • 2747 Views
Occam’s razor
« on: March 13, 2016, 02:56:18 PM »
Occam’s razor : day, night Globe; Day the observer is facing the source of light, Night the observer has rotated and now facing opposite of the source of light, viewing the stars.

Occam’s razor: Night to night change in the zodiac: the Globe Earth orbits the sun in 365 days, each night facing a slightly different direction.

Occam’s razor: day on flat earth; Day the sun is overhead, Night the sun has moved 180° around from the north pole, the sun being a spotlight there is no over shine to the previous location, Night as there is a no glare from the sun you can see the stars on the dome.

Occam’s razor: Night to night change in the zodiac: the flat Earth,? Did not find an explanation.

The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2016, 03:26:27 PM »
In summary: Occam's razor is a principle, not a universal law of truth. Not everything follows it. Citing it adds no weight to an argument.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2016, 04:09:20 PM »
In summary: Occam's razor is a principle, not a universal law of truth. Not everything follows it. Citing it adds no weight to an argument.

To be fair, it's a pretty decent principle when correctly applied. Few people do, mind you: it's used more as a disguise for circular reasoning.
The main issue is that it's a gauge of whether a belief is well-held and reasonable, rather than if it's true. Something can adhere to Occam's Razor and still be false: however, generally that's meaningless. We need to rely on the principles of logic holding. Practically, we may as well assume the Razor's a gauge of truth.

Not really sure what the OP's talking about though.

*

Sir Richard

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 451
Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2016, 05:46:54 PM »
Occam’s razor : day, night Globe; Day the observer is facing the source of light, Night the observer has rotated and now facing opposite of the source of light, viewing the stars.

Occam’s razor: Night to night change in the zodiac: the Globe Earth orbits the sun in 365 days, each night facing a slightly different direction.

Occam’s razor: day on flat earth; Day the sun is overhead, Night the sun has moved 180° around from the north pole, the sun being a spotlight there is no over shine to the previous location, Night as there is a no glare from the sun you can see the stars on the dome.

Occam’s razor: Night to night change in the zodiac: the flat Earth,? Did not find an explanation.
The round earth theory is much less parsimonious than the FE theory. Fo example rounders have to develop huge distances because of lack of parallax. And those huge silly distances cause so many other problems that the number of mental gymnastics required are almost beyond number.
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

"It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin

Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2016, 07:38:27 PM »
The round earth theory is much less parsimonious than the FE theory. Fo example rounders have to develop huge distances because of lack of parallax. And those huge silly distances cause so many other problems that the number of mental gymnastics required are almost beyond number.
Such as?

How about flat Earth's number of mental (or optical to be more exact) gymnastics required to allow multiple observers from different directions to always see the same face of the moon (or sun), to have it appear the same size from rise to set even though (according to FET) it's 32 miles across and 3,000 miles up, to allow it to appear to sink below the horizon at a constant rate even though it would need to be 30,000 miles away just to get within about 6 degrees of the horizon and would approach the horizon at an increasingly slowing rate, and allows it to pass overhead on the tropic of Capricorn during the southern summer at the same speed it passes overhead on the tropic of Cancer during the northern summer even though those would be two vastly different circumferences to complete over the same 24 hour period?

Then there is the movement of the stars and how the south celestial pole even fits into mono-pole model (which model do you prefer anyway?)

Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2016, 07:57:42 PM »
Addendum:

The Observation at noon of the angle of the Sun to the horizon changes daily and at midnight the constellation of the zodiac that appears at Center throughout the year, changes from month-to-month, has the same cause, that is the rotation of the earth in 24 hours, with the tilt of the axis, and its orbit round the Sun in 365 days.

The question is for the flat Earth how does one see the same constellation on the opposite side of the earth and have a change each month? Where does the consolation go when it's not seeing?
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2016, 11:46:11 PM »
Occam’s razor : day, night Globe; Day the observer is facing the source of light, Night the observer has rotated and now facing opposite of the source of light, viewing the stars.

Occam’s razor: Night to night change in the zodiac: the Globe Earth orbits the sun in 365 days, each night facing a slightly different direction.

Occam’s razor: day on flat earth; Day the sun is overhead, Night the sun has moved 180° around from the north pole, the sun being a spotlight there is no over shine to the previous location, Night as there is a no glare from the sun you can see the stars on the dome.

Occam’s razor: Night to night change in the zodiac: the flat Earth,? Did not find an explanation.
The round earth theory is much less parsimonious than the FE theory. Fo example rounders have to develop huge distances because of lack of parallax. And those huge silly distances cause so many other problems that the number of mental gymnastics required are almost beyond number.

If I had a nickle for every time you used the word "parsimonious"... No sir, it is not. For a FE to be the more likely scenario you need to explain why the remainder of the observable universe functions to different principles, i.e. globes of Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc.  I would also be curious how a self-illuminating moon theory is more "parsimonious" than one in which it is illuminated by the sun.  Oh right, then you will have to explain WHY there is no space, when space is observable.  Of course every phenomena regarding our round planet is well documented and explained and fits well within existing theories, which have been tested. 

You then need to create a working theory to prove your contrived theories and PROVE them.  Keep in mind that I have found people much like you that do indeed believe in a "Hollow Earth" model.  Much like you they are convinced in this reality. 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2016, 02:40:20 AM »
The round earth theory is much less parsimonious than the FE theory. Fo example rounders have to develop huge distances because of lack of parallax. And those huge silly distances cause so many other problems that the number of mental gymnastics required are almost beyond number.
Occam's razor only works as a point of comparison. You have to provide your own explanation for the observation, and then say why yours is better than the alternative.
Why, exactly, do you believe large distances are an unreasonable claim about reality?

*

Sir Richard

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 451
Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2016, 05:59:17 AM »
Occam’s razor : day, night Globe; Day the observer is facing the source of light, Night the observer has rotated and now facing opposite of the source of light, viewing the stars.

Occam’s razor: Night to night change in the zodiac: the Globe Earth orbits the sun in 365 days, each night facing a slightly different direction.

Occam’s razor: day on flat earth; Day the sun is overhead, Night the sun has moved 180° around from the north pole, the sun being a spotlight there is no over shine to the previous location, Night as there is a no glare from the sun you can see the stars on the dome.

Occam’s razor: Night to night change in the zodiac: the flat Earth,? Did not find an explanation.
The round earth theory is much less parsimonious than the FE theory. Fo example rounders have to develop huge distances because of lack of parallax. And those huge silly distances cause so many other problems that the number of mental gymnastics required are almost beyond number.

If I had a nickle for every time you used the word "parsimonious"... No sir, it is not. For a FE to be the more likely scenario you need to explain why the remainder of the observable universe functions to different principles, i.e. globes of Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc.  I would also be curious how a self-illuminating moon theory is more "parsimonious" than one in which it is illuminated by the sun.  Oh right, then you will have to explain WHY there is no space, when space is observable.  Of course every phenomena regarding our round planet is well documented and explained and fits well within existing theories, which have been tested. 

You then need to create a working theory to prove your contrived theories and PROVE them.  Keep in mind that I have found people much like you that do indeed believe in a "Hollow Earth" model.  Much like you they are convinced in this reality.

Well lets discuss PARSIMONIUS one more time- only I will let these "illuminaries" discuss the moon- it is quickly evident that the "Self Illuminating" moon is much easier the explain than tides

“If the Moon lifted up the water, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low instead of high tide caused. Again, the velocity and path of the Moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the Earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence. But the tides are not uniform. At Port Natal the rise and fall is about 6 feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet. This effectually settles the matter that the Moon has no influence on the tides. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the Earth on the bosom of the mighty deep. In inland lakes, there are no tides; which also proves that the Moon cannot attract either the Earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the Earth which rests on the waters of the deep shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the Earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny”

“It is affirmed that the intensity of attraction increases with proximity, and vice versa. How, then, when the waters are drawn up by the Moon from their bed, and away from the Earth's attraction,--which at that greater distance from the centre is considerably diminished, while that of the Moon is proportionately increased--is it possible that all the waters acted on should be prevented leaving the Earth and flying away to the Moon? If the Moon has power of attraction sufficient to lift the waters of the Earth at all, even a single inch from their deepest receptacles, where the Earth's attraction is much the greater, there is nothing in the theory of attraction of gravitation to prevent her taking to herself all the waters which come within her influence. Let the smaller body once overcome the power of the larger, and the power of the smaller becomes greater than when it first operated, because the matter acted on is nearer to it. Proximity is greater, and therefore power is greater ... How then can the waters of the ocean immediately underneath the Moon flow towards the shores, and so cause a flood tide? Water flows, it is said, through the law of gravity, or attraction of the Earth's centre; is it possible then for the Moon, having once overcome the power of the Earth, to let go her hold upon the waters, through the influence of a power which she has conquered, and which therefore, is less than her own? ... The above and other difficulties which exist in connection with the explanation of the tides afforded by the Newtonian system, have led many, including Sir Isaac Newton himself, to admit that such explanation is the least satisfactory portion of the ‘theory of gravitation.’ Thus we have been carried forward by the sheer force of evidence to the conclusion that the tides of the sea do not arise from the attraction of the Moon, but simply from the rising and falling of the floating Earth in the waters of the ‘great deep.’ That calmness which is found to exist at the bottom of the great seas could not be possible if the waters were alternately raised by the Moon and pulled down by the Earth.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (159-175)
“Even Sir Isaac Newton himself confessed that the explanation of the Moon's action on the Tides was the least satisfactory part of his theory of Gravitation. This theory asserts that the larger object attracts the smaller, and the mass of the Moon being reckoned as only one-eighth of that of the Earth, it follows that, if, by the presumed force of Gravitation, the Earth revolves round the Sun, much more, for the same reason, should the Moon do so likewise, instead of which that willful orb still continues to go round our world. Tides vary greatly in height, owing chiefly to the different configurations of the adjoining lands. At Chepstow it rises to 60 feet, at Portishead to 50, while at Dublin Bay it is but 1 2, and at Wexford only 5 feet ... That the Earth itself has a slight tremulous motion may be seen in the movement of the spirit-level, even when fixed as steadily as possible, and that the sea has a fluctuation may be witnessed by the oscillation of an anchored ship in the calmest day of summer. By what means the tides are so regularly affected is at present only conjectured; possibly it may be by atmospheric pressure on the waters of the Great Deep, and perhaps even the Moon itself, as suggested by the late Dr. Rowbotham, may influence the atmosphere, increasing or diminishing its barometric pressure, and indirectly the rise and fall of the Earth in the waters.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma”
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

"It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2016, 06:47:10 AM »
Most distances in space aren't claims, they are measurements.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Sir Richard

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 451
Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2016, 06:56:48 AM »
The round earth theory is much less parsimonious than the FE theory. Fo example rounders have to develop huge distances because of lack of parallax. And those huge silly distances cause so many other problems that the number of mental gymnastics required are almost beyond number.
Such as?

How about flat Earth's number of mental (or optical to be more exact) gymnastics required to allow multiple observers from different directions to always see the same face of the moon (or sun), to have it appear the same size from rise to set even though (according to FET) it's 32 miles across and 3,000 miles up, to allow it to appear to sink below the horizon at a constant rate even though it would need to be 30,000 miles away just to get within about 6 degrees of the horizon and would approach the horizon at an increasingly slowing rate, and allows it to pass overhead on the tropic of Capricorn during the southern summer at the same speed it passes overhead on the tropic of Cancer during the northern summer even though those would be two vastly different circumferences to complete over the same 24 hour period?

Then there is the movement of the stars and how the south celestial pole even fits into mono-pole model (which model do you prefer anyway?)
Such as the lack of parallax and the "invention" of huge distances in order to explain the lack there of as just ONE example
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

"It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2016, 07:42:19 AM »
The round earth theory is much less parsimonious than the FE theory. Fo example rounders have to develop huge distances because of lack of parallax. And those huge silly distances cause so many other problems that the number of mental gymnastics required are almost beyond number.
Such as?

How about flat Earth's number of mental (or optical to be more exact) gymnastics required to allow multiple observers from different directions to always see the same face of the moon (or sun), to have it appear the same size from rise to set even though (according to FET) it's 32 miles across and 3,000 miles up, to allow it to appear to sink below the horizon at a constant rate even though it would need to be 30,000 miles away just to get within about 6 degrees of the horizon and would approach the horizon at an increasingly slowing rate, and allows it to pass overhead on the tropic of Capricorn during the southern summer at the same speed it passes overhead on the tropic of Cancer during the northern summer even though those would be two vastly different circumferences to complete over the same 24 hour period?

Then there is the movement of the stars and how the south celestial pole even fits into mono-pole model (which model do you prefer anyway?)
Such as the lack of parallax and the "invention" of huge distances in order to explain the lack there of as just ONE example
No, there's definitely parallax.  We don't "invent" anything about the universe, we simply discover what is already there.  It is you that invents problems for RE where none exist, instead of simply looking up the answer. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Sir Richard

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 451
Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2016, 08:03:10 AM »

No, there's definitely parallax.  We don't "invent" anything about the universe, we simply discover what is already there.  It is you that invents problems for RE where none exist, instead of simply looking up the answer.
Tyco Barhe proved that hardly ANY parallax was detected almost zero or as close as one could be. The result- "well that is because the stars of billions and billions of miles away".  Another problem- the incredible synchronization with Polaris under the heliocentric model. Pretzel logic.
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

"It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin

?

palmerito0

  • 582
  • Why does this forum exist?
Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2016, 08:23:01 AM »

No, there's definitely parallax.  We don't "invent" anything about the universe, we simply discover what is already there.  It is you that invents problems for RE where none exist, instead of simply looking up the answer.
Tyco Barhe proved that hardly ANY parallax was detected almost zero or as close as one could be. The result- "well that is because the stars of billions and billions of miles away".  Another problem- the incredible synchronization with Polaris under the heliocentric model. Pretzel logic.

With modern instruments such as the Hipparcos satellite[url] astronomers have been able to accurately measure parallax. I don't understand what is wrong with the stars being far away - it is just the logical conclusion to the parallax observations made.

Could you please elaborate about the Polaris thing and how it is "pretzel logic"?
Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

WHEEEEEEEEEEE

?

palmerito0

  • 582
  • Why does this forum exist?
Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #14 on: March 14, 2016, 08:23:44 AM »

No, there's definitely parallax.  We don't "invent" anything about the universe, we simply discover what is already there.  It is you that invents problems for RE where none exist, instead of simply looking up the answer.
Tyco Barhe proved that hardly ANY parallax was detected almost zero or as close as one could be. The result- "well that is because the stars of billions and billions of miles away".  Another problem- the incredible synchronization with Polaris under the heliocentric model. Pretzel logic.

With modern instruments such as the Hipparcos satellite[url] astronomers have been able to accurately measure parallax. I don't understand what is wrong with the stars being far away - it is just the logical conclusion to the parallax observations made.

Could you please elaborate about the Polaris thing and how it is "pretzel logic"?
Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

WHEEEEEEEEEEE

Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2016, 09:06:04 AM »
The round earth theory is much less parsimonious than the FE theory. Fo example rounders have to develop huge distances because of lack of parallax. And those huge silly distances cause so many other problems that the number of mental gymnastics required are almost beyond number.
Such as?

How about flat Earth's number of mental (or optical to be more exact) gymnastics required to allow multiple observers from different directions to always see the same face of the moon (or sun), to have it appear the same size from rise to set even though (according to FET) it's 32 miles across and 3,000 miles up, to allow it to appear to sink below the horizon at a constant rate even though it would need to be 30,000 miles away just to get within about 6 degrees of the horizon and would approach the horizon at an increasingly slowing rate, and allows it to pass overhead on the tropic of Capricorn during the southern summer at the same speed it passes overhead on the tropic of Cancer during the northern summer even though those would be two vastly different circumferences to complete over the same 24 hour period?

Then there is the movement of the stars and how the south celestial pole even fits into mono-pole model (which model do you prefer anyway?)
Such as the lack of parallax and the "invention" of huge distances in order to explain the lack there of as just ONE example
So is there 'no parallax' or a 'very small amount of parallax'?  Huge distances result in very little parallax.  That's not a problem, it's just the way it is.  Speaking of stars, let us take a look at stars over a flat Earth.  Do they consist of a layer roughly the same height as the sun?

What are some of the "many other" problems?

Well lets discuss PARSIMONIUS one more time- only I will let these "illuminaries" discuss the moon- it is quickly evident that the "Self Illuminating" moon is much easier the explain than tides
Your 'illuminaries' seem to think the water would be lifted off the bottom by the moon and that the lack of tides on lakes is proof the moon isn't the reason for the tides. If they actually understood tides, they would know why there are no tides on lakes.  They also don't seem to agree on the cause of tides.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16862
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2016, 10:19:19 AM »
It is always possible to say one theory is more or less complex as another by simple use of framing. Its all based in our observational language.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM »
The round earth theory is much less parsimonious than the FE theory. Fo example rounders have to develop huge distances because of lack of parallax. And those huge silly distances cause so many other problems that the number of mental gymnastics required are almost beyond number.
Such as?

How about flat Earth's number of mental (or optical to be more exact) gymnastics required to allow multiple observers from different directions to always see the same face of the moon (or sun), to have it appear the same size from rise to set even though (according to FET) it's 32 miles across and 3,000 miles up, to allow it to appear to sink below the horizon at a constant rate even though it would need to be 30,000 miles away just to get within about 6 degrees of the horizon and would approach the horizon at an increasingly slowing rate, and allows it to pass overhead on the tropic of Capricorn during the southern summer at the same speed it passes overhead on the tropic of Cancer during the northern summer even though those would be two vastly different circumferences to complete over the same 24 hour period?

Then there is the movement of the stars and how the south celestial pole even fits into mono-pole model (which model do you prefer anyway?)
Such as the lack of parallax and the "invention" of huge distances in order to explain the lack there of as just ONE example
You do know that parallax in stars has been measured, over a distance of the diameter of the earths orbit, you take one measurement, then wait 6 months then take a second measurement. If you don't know, the distance to the sun can be measured by reflecting radio waves of venus to find its distance at different times of its orbit.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2016, 07:38:47 PM »
Another problem- the incredible synchronization with Polaris under the heliocentric model. Pretzel logic.
Not a problem for the Heliocentric Globe Earth!
Quote
History of Polaris.
Polaris hasn’t always been the North Star and won’t remain the North Star forever. For example, a famous star called Thuban, in the constellation Draco the Dragon, was the North Star when the Egyptians built the pyramids.

But our present Polaris is a good North Star because it’s the sky’s 50th brightest star. So it’s noticeable in the sky. It served well as the North Star, for example, when the Europeans first sailed across the Atlantic over five centuries ago.

And Polaris will continue its reign as the North Star for many centuries to come. It will align most closely with the north celestial pole – the point in the sky directly above Earth’s north rotational axis – on March 24, 2100. The computational wizard Jean Meeus figures Polaris will be 27’09” (0.4525°) from the north celestial pole at that time (a little less than the angular diameter of the moon when at its farthest from Earth).

The is no "incredible synchronization". Polaris just happens to be a star close to the North Celestial Pole at present! As the earth "wobbles" a little (precesses) that changes.

Why is this a problem? It can be readily explained.

Now explain the historical variation on the Flat Earth Model - yes, "it just happens"!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #19 on: March 15, 2016, 01:02:13 AM »
Now explain the historical variation on the Flat Earth Model - yes, "it just happens"!
To be fair, 'it just happens' is a fair enough reply if they can say what it is that's actually happening.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2016, 02:16:53 PM »
I can't believe Jroweskepic isn't here. He can't be too busy with his own forum can he?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Occam’s razor
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2016, 05:33:14 PM »
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote.
Occam's razor is often used to shift the burden of proof: My view is simpler, now you have to disprove me!
Used that way Occam's razor is misused, i believe.
If Occam believed matters should not be overly complicated and the less complicated they where, the more true they where.. he, most certainly is wrong.
But used as a search for faults, it is a good path: my internet connection is not working. Why?
Start with the simple. Work your way through before you spend time on the overly complicated.

Beyond that point I believe Sherlock Holmes says it better.