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

<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