[gallo]

Quote by: Mozart1220 Many aspects of astronomy CAN be tested. For example, the red shift PROVING the universe is expanding, the way light (which is not polarised coming from the sun) becomes polorised [sic] as it reflects off a body in space, tells us much about the composition of that body. The "wobble" of certain stars tell us that somthing [sic] is efecting [sic] the star's rotation, and since it would take a massive body to do so, we can literally "prove" the existance of planets around distand [sic] stars. Astronomy PROVED that the Earth and the other planets revolved around the Sun, which is what got Galileo in so much trouble with the Catholic church.

You can't even get that right. Galileo observed satellites around other planets and hypothesized that the earth was not the fixed center of the universe. Galileo hypothesized that not all heavenly bodies revolved around the earth. Wouldn't it be better if you actually educated yourself before speaking?

Quote by: Mozart1220 Astronomy PROVED that a comet hit Jupiter, and the resulting plumes,

What ignorant balderdash. The impact of Shoemaker-Levy was an observation. It was predicted based on old fashioned Newtonian physics.

Quote by: Mozart1220 PROVED much of what Jupiter's atmosphere was made of (MUCH more water than we previously thought for example).

Did it offer evidence or was it proof, beyond a doubt, to the extent that we must reject evidence to the contrary in the future?

Quote by: Mozart1220 Black holes, and now "dark matter" were once crazy theories, but now have been proven.

How ignorant of science can you be?

Quote by: Mozart1220 The Hubble telescope has taken pictures of "star nurseries" in distand [sic] places, PROVING how and where stars form in the first place.

So observations are proof, rather than data? And I thought that science required an hypothesis, a falsifiable prediction, and experimentation that tested the prediction. How utterly ignorant to claim that observations of distant gas clouds are proof of anything.

Quote by: Mozart1220 Just because it can't be physically touched, does not mean it can't be observed and anylized [sic].

You seem to have a problem in differentiating an observation from proof. Observation and analysis are not the same as proof. I have observed vast expanses of water before me as I drove across the Nevada salt flats. I understand why there was no water there. I don't jump to the conclusion that there is a vast ocean that can only be seen from miles away. I observed it, but it isn't proof that it exists.