The one that we can observe, motes of light moving in the sky

@Bannebie It's not really. It's no system, just what I feel to be more true.

That's an observation

Not a system

@Fading direct measurement

Subscribe to parry if ur a flat earther https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgq4F5bH9gP4sytkrpFJarw

Alright, @Bannebie has been warned for '**Bad word usage**'.

@Human Sheeple The accuracy of that instrument is completely inappropriate for the scale we're talking about

That's what I meant, I think my wording was just inadequate

@Bannebie Okay, but then you've said nothing? Science is attempting to answer _why_ and orbits are a model that has been proposed and then repeatedly, exhaustedly verified

@Fading Well feel free to measure it yourself, here go to Ali Baba I even took the trouble to fill out the order form for you

@Human Sheeple it reads the same when you put it on a basketball

@Hamburger Guy No it doesn't!

Stars move in the sky is a great start, an observation. But it is not a system

@Human Sheeple That picture is precisely the reason a spirit level is inappropriate. Both systems can and will behave as perfectly flat for the purposes of the instrument regardless of their macro-scale real shapes

That's what I said ya dingis

@Fading Did you visit Alib Baba yet?
Sorry I forgot to post the link
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/HJ-factory-direct-sales-high-quality_60651662844.html

The thing is that it's a huge leap from *things move in the sky* to *planets have an orbit around a gigantic ball of gas*. What I'm trying to say is that we cannot go any further from the observation that we can see lights moving in the sky since we lack the data to come to any other conclusion and most likely will never have the data to do so

The terrain may be rough on that image of a basketball but just put the same line through the Himalayas

@Bannebie Well in short terms, no? Our only observation isn't "things move"

We have many variations upon the data we now use

So unless we can *directly observe* planets orbiting a sun, which would confirm the hypothesized model, where's no way we can be absolutely certain that planets have an orbit

Balls in the sky move. They also move in certain patterns. Then you look at those patterns and you wonder how it interacts with other things that are (for the sake of this argument) proven in science (like gravity). Then you theorise maybe the force of gravity is keeping them in line, how could that be? Perhaps an orbit

@Bannebie Is viewing our planets at different times which then traces a path that is an orbit around our sun not a valid observation?

It is, but the only thing you can tell from that is that, again, things seem to move in the sky. You can't possibly make the assumption that gravity keeps them in orbit because we don't know what planets are made out of and if they're even affected by gravity.

Well, it's not an assumption per se. You theorise maybe gravity is what affects them into behaving a certain way. You come up with a hypothesis and then you _test it_

The core of science is then if you test it and your observations reveal that your theory applies, you can then expand on it

Okay, but then you also have to *falsify* it by showing that it's *only* gravity affection them and nothing else

If we hadn't observed the planets behave in a way that conformed to models involving gravitational interaction we wouldn't assume so

That's not how that works?

Because gravity is an adequate explanation, but so is that planets are wandering motes of light in the sky.

Except that it's exactly how it works

The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, repeatability and falsification

So yes, the basketball is flat

Lol I forgot I had this on my server list

Falsifiability in science refers to the ability for a hypothesis to be disproven, not that you must prove that is the only thing that could affect it

You can come up with any number of ridiculous, outlandish ideas that would explain the same behaviour, and then by your logic you would have to disprove every single one in order to say gravity is the only thing involved

You cant falsify the globe earth unless you flew up and either hit a barrier or saw the earth was flat

Except we start seeing curvature at 50000 feet