Quote:
Quote by: gallo  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?
What ignorant balderdash. The impact of Shoemaker-Levy was an observation. It was predicted based on old fashioned Newtonian physics.
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?
How ignorant of science can you be?
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.
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. |
Galileo PROVED that the planets went around the Sun by OBSERVING that Venus and Mercury had PHASES, but the other three planets he could see did not. He built a model and OBSERVED the same thing, PROVING that not only must the bodies be circling a central light source, but that the Earth "his relative position" was third in line.
Now we have PROVEN Galileo right through the use of probes and sattelites, and by astronauts actually going into space.
If you don't like what science "proves" fine, but don't insult those who accept it for what it is.
TRUTH.