If I have a ton of balloons of the same density individually adding more balloons will not change the density

Do the math

You mean balloons filled with WATER?

right you won't take off no

The point is that we have no idea what planets are, so using gravity to explain anything about planets is senseless.

How would Helium be different

10 fold lower density than air

@Bannebie So just to be aware of what we're talking about here, you don't believe we know whether or not planets are large masses in space?

@Fading 😂

The light you see in the sky weighs NOTHING

it's light

Yes, I don't believe anyone knows what exactly planets are since there's no way we can directly observe their size or weight.

@Bannebie You can measure angular size

Yeah uh you can view their size with telescopes lol

Observable testable repeatable, that's science

Yes, but that's just the *apparent* size.

@Fading Where's the testable and repeatable part?

Oh whoopsie you forgot that bit didn't you

@Human Sheeple of what?

SCIENCE

Testable and repeatable part of what?

For the *actual* size you'd need the distance, which can't be measured

If I can SEE a streetlamp 10km away, am I allowed to say it's a burning ball of fusion gas? Or if I climbed that lamp post and disassembled it and tested what it's made of, would I find a bunch of LEDs?

Well we use planetary orbits combined with angular size to calculate a planet's true size

@Human Sheeple We're talking about different things, I'm just saying we have _some_ information of what a planet is whereas Bannebie appears to be claiming we have _none_

When you disregard experiment and repeatability, you are pushing PSEUDOSCIENCE

I mean that's assuming planets have something like an orbit

So what's this then?

This is a planet

@Bannebie Okay so that's what I'm trying to get at, are you saying you don't believe planets orbit the way the scientific community thinks they do?

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