Message from @Death9Reaper
Discord ID: 567344260609867777
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
Yes, by *disproving* alternative explanations. If phenomenon A can be explained by observation B and observation C, how do you determine which observation adequately explains the phenomenon?
There has to be assumptions made with everything
Any conversation
Precisely.
@Hamburger Guy yeah but 70 percent of the Earth is covered with water
Here, let me give you an example
So Earth is mostly flat
You're coming up with hypothetical alternate theories that have an equal amount of evidence. For orbits, those _do not exist_
It's not mostly mountain
Water isnt flat
We do not have another explanation with even close to the amount of observations and evidence and models we have for orbital theory
That makes no sense
The earth is oblong
@Death9Reaper It's mostly flat
Water is not level heard of ocean currents
*under certain weather conditions
They are schedule though
Well yeah but it still isnt flat over long distances