OK, so how is assuming that there is no difference between the earth and rotating bodies we observe less an assumption than assuming that there is a difference between the earth and the rotating bodies we observe and therefore an argument for Occam's Razor?
What about objects that aren't observed to rotate, like the moon. You assume they do rotate even though they appear not to? Where is Occam's Razor now?
But the moon does rotate. It’s that it’s rotation is geosynchronous with the earth. If it didn’t we’d see its other side.
“OK, so how is assuming that there is no difference between the earth and rotating bodies we observe less an assumption than assuming that there is a difference between the earth and the rotating bodies we observe and therefore an argument for Occam’s Razor?”
It wasn’t “less of an assumption”, however it was a simplifying assumption.
BTW, one of the basic precepts of all science is that there are no “special” places in the Universe where things work differently than elsewhere. It would take a lot of good evidence to overturn that one. Occams Razor also applies there.
“What about objects that aren’t observed to rotate, like the moon. You assume they do rotate even though they appear not to? Where is Occam’s Razor now?”
What do objects that don’t rotate have to do with those that do? (Another poster made the point about the Moon rotating so I’ll leave that alone.)
I made no “assumption” about non-rotating bodies rotating... I was simply speaking of the numerous rotating bodies we do observe.