I'm just clarifying your stance here

This however is NOT a planet

@Fading Precisely, AFAIK all those things are based on assumptions we cannot test, repeat or replicate. It's variables which we cannot empirically prove, therefore the only honest answer one could give is *I don't know*

So you don't feel for example that data gathered by the likes of Tycho Brahe are adequate indication perhaps that the bodies in the sky orbit? And so on and so forth

I'm not exactly sure who that is, I'm rather bad with names

@Fading You know they assassinated Tycho Brahe

They did NOT like his geocentric model

Well my point is our understanding of the planets and the orbits is based on several hundred years worth of observations and refinement to theories

So I was just wondering, do you disbelieve that data proves what people assume it does, or that's it's fake etc

<a:Hasake1:528042341915820032><a:Hasake2:528042342062751744><a:Hasake3:528042342637109278>

It's less that I disbelieve it and more that I believe it's based on assumptions which we can't directly test. Saying a planet has an orbit because it follows a certain path is a non-sequitur. A planet following a certain path simply means that a planet is following a certain path, you can't induct anything else from that.

But if that path behaves the way an orbital model would explain, you don't believe that to be valid evidence?

MODEL

Are you saying the only way we can accept something to be true is if you hypothetically tracked it the whole way around without any steps in between?

MODELS are a system of postulates

Postulates are a system of assumptions

Assumptions are a system of beliefs

A system of beliefs is a RELIGION

I thought we were talking SCIENCE here

Who thinks the earth is flat

@Superiorna_Artiljerija WRONG it's a measurement

@Human Sheeple You don't need to believe in an assumption to decide to test it to see if it is valid

Hello is the earth flat

<a:PeaceAndTranquility:534895590933528596>

Alright, @Dec knudssen (MRS x KILLS) has been warned for '**Bad word usage**'.

The earth is not flat end off get a grip 🌏🌏

Ha

@Fading No, I'm saying that it's would be true if you could successfully falsify it by showing that 1) an orbital model sufficiently represents the observation and 2) any other model *wouldn't* sufficiently represent the observations. So far, you can explain planets by either an orbital model, which also assumes that planets have an orbit or that planets are some kind of wandering lights in the sky that happen to have a path. Using occam's razor on the two would yield that it's more likely that planets do in fact not have an orbit.

Here is the definition of a MODEL

SYSTEM OF POSTULATES

@Bannebie Number 2 isn't actually the case

Postulate means TO ASSUME

ASSUME means to PRETEND

In a simplified way, you pick the _best_ model with the most evidence and ability to predict (which is what testability is)

PRETEND means to make BELIEVE

So a system of postulates is a system of beliefs which means RELIGION