Of course. Very few things in the study of the universe are totally certain. But the combination of evidence in the details of each dip and the regular sequence of dips leaves no other idea that would supplant the idea of planetary discovery.
Of course it isn't. It should be considered a hypothesis until a better one comes. Indirect evidence is the only thing to go by in astronomy. That's why you get religious people on the science forum claiming the earth is a few thousand years old, and denying the big bang was billions of years old and denying radioactive dating methods.
do you have any proof of the big bang or that it happened billions of yrs ago???
Nothing in science can be proved. Basic physics is composed of mathematical models. That's it. Experiments or observed data drive the models. Models in basic physics agree with experiment with an accuracy of parts per billion to trillion. Models involving astrophysics, geophysics, or climate, etc. are much less accurate.
Never has been. It is the nature of science to improve accuracy in the face of new evidence.
Your goofy conspiracy theories regarding science are funny,,,,
That is so sad. Maybe you shouldn't visit this science & technology forum.
Yes it would be sad, but you seem to be so nihilistic about science and what it can mean.
how so???
Nobody is telling you to accept anything unless you are taking a science class and don't want to fail. Most studies of the universe and early earth involve indirect evidence. If you don't want to accept that type of evidence there is no harm done and we go our separate ways.
no such thing as indirect science,,,thats called guessing or just makin shit up,,,
