Actually… if you squint a bit there is a compact way to represent the fitted geocentric mode:
The Earth is at the center.
There is a mysterious force, originating from the earth, that pushes all objects away. It’s strength is what you would expect from the Earth’s centrifugal force according to the modern model.
All the objects in the universe, other than the Earth, are accelerated at the opposite direction and size than what the Earth’s acceleration in the modern model.
With relativity in mind these rules may not be enough, but let’s ignore that for the sake of the argument.
At this point, I’ll ask the neogeocenterists (pun intended), wouldn’t it be simpler and easier to just use the modern model for calculating my predictions?
“But then you’ll get wrong results!”, they’ll say.
How so? The centrifugal force from assuming the Earth rotates mimics your mysterious force that pushes all things away, and the acceleration the Earth mimics the acceleration your model adds to all other celestial bodies. Then, when predictions for the relative position and velocity of each pair of objects should be identical in both models.
“Yea, sure, but you’d still get wrong results—the Earth will not be in the cener.”
So… what? What difference does being in the center make? If it makes a difference, we should test for that difference and support or disprove your model!
“No, this is not a difference you can test for, but it makes us special!”
Special… how?
“There are countless planets in the universe, and infinite positions to put the center. What is the probability that we are the ones in the center? That we are the only planet that doesn’t move? That these mysterious unexplainable forces make sure we are kept in the center of the universe?”
Pretty damn high, I’d say, considering how you picked the origin to be our position, you decided to use our velocity for calculating the relevant velocities of all other objects as if they were absolute velocities, and you are the ones who added these mysterious forces instead of picking a model that does not require them. Sure, I can’t scientifically prove that your model is wrong, but you can’t prove that all the other models that don’t put the Earth in the center are wrong—and therefore you cannot claim that the Earth is special for being in the center of the universe.
--------------------------------------
By defining beliefs as the predictions you can get from them, I don’t need Occam’s Razor to be true—it is enough that it is useful. The neogeocentric model is not different than the model I use—not in any meaningful way, for if it was different in any meaningful way that would be a difference in predictions that we could test. So I don’t need to argue that simpler = truer—I just let them have their complicated representation of the belief, and instead draw the line on trying to get any meaningful insight from it that cannot be obtained from the more compact representation that I use.
Actually… if you squint a bit there is a compact way to represent the fitted geocentric mode:
The Earth is at the center.
There is a mysterious force, originating from the earth, that pushes all objects away. It’s strength is what you would expect from the Earth’s centrifugal force according to the modern model.
All the objects in the universe, other than the Earth, are accelerated at the opposite direction and size than what the Earth’s acceleration in the modern model.
With relativity in mind these rules may not be enough, but let’s ignore that for the sake of the argument.
At this point, I’ll ask the neogeocenterists (pun intended), wouldn’t it be simpler and easier to just use the modern model for calculating my predictions?
“But then you’ll get wrong results!”, they’ll say.
How so? The centrifugal force from assuming the Earth rotates mimics your mysterious force that pushes all things away, and the acceleration the Earth mimics the acceleration your model adds to all other celestial bodies. Then, when predictions for the relative position and velocity of each pair of objects should be identical in both models.
“Yea, sure, but you’d still get wrong results—the Earth will not be in the cener.”
So… what? What difference does being in the center make? If it makes a difference, we should test for that difference and support or disprove your model!
“No, this is not a difference you can test for, but it makes us special!”
Special… how?
“There are countless planets in the universe, and infinite positions to put the center. What is the probability that we are the ones in the center? That we are the only planet that doesn’t move? That these mysterious unexplainable forces make sure we are kept in the center of the universe?”
Pretty damn high, I’d say, considering how you picked the origin to be our position, you decided to use our velocity for calculating the relevant velocities of all other objects as if they were absolute velocities, and you are the ones who added these mysterious forces instead of picking a model that does not require them. Sure, I can’t scientifically prove that your model is wrong, but you can’t prove that all the other models that don’t put the Earth in the center are wrong—and therefore you cannot claim that the Earth is special for being in the center of the universe.
--------------------------------------
By defining beliefs as the predictions you can get from them, I don’t need Occam’s Razor to be true—it is enough that it is useful. The neogeocentric model is not different than the model I use—not in any meaningful way, for if it was different in any meaningful way that would be a difference in predictions that we could test. So I don’t need to argue that simpler = truer—I just let them have their complicated representation of the belief, and instead draw the line on trying to get any meaningful insight from it that cannot be obtained from the more compact representation that I use.