“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.
Ockham never actually enunciated the Principle of Parsimony and it wouldn't apply to the empirical anyway.
This may be where you are having the problem. You think that there are fewer assumptions in a rotating earth model than in a rotating universe model. There are not and Occam's Razor does not apply.
You assume that the moon rotates because you assume that the universe does not. I observe that the universe rotates and observe that the moon does not.
There are fewer assumptions in a rotating universe model and Occam's Razor cannot be used as an argument in favor of a rotating earth.