Barbarian observes:
That's what they said, when the Kuiper Belt was discovered by plotting the paths of short-term comets. But then the method was validated when we were able to directly observe the Kuiper objects. So it's rather pointless to deny that the method works, seeing as it has already been demonstrated to work.
As you now realize, the method worked exactly right in finding the Kuiper Belt. The predicted mass of comets beyond Pluto has been verified. There was never any doubt; the laws of physics made it certain.
And, It's still an assumption.
Nope. Inference from evidence. And as you now see, we did the same thing to discover the Kuiper Belt, which we can now observe. So we know it works. Kepler's laws make it certain. If you observe the path of a comet, you will find the apogee, from which comets come.
A guy watches another guy go over to a bucket and pull out a rock..... He goes over and reaches around....no rock......
That's not what scientists did. You still don't get it.
Your argument is bogus. Just because the Kuiper belt was there has absolutely zero basis for the Oort cloud to be there.
The same evidence and reasoning confirmed the Kuiper Belt long before we could actually see it. So there's really no point in denial, is there?
It is created to explain an unexplainable event. It is presented as fact when it is all talk.
As you learned, it's evidence and reason.
It's what science does. We take evidence, see what it indicates, and make predictions. Then we test them. And in this case, we know it works, because we've tested it and verified it.
You cannot "if this, then this, if that, then this and so on and so on. All the while the first IF is unproven....That is kangaroo science and they teach this and talk about them as if they are as real as Mount Everest. Meanwhile they are as real as Spider-man.
See above. Scientists used facts and demonstrated theories to predict the Kuiper Belt long before it was seen. That's how science works. Even creationists now admit that half of that story is false. And when we find a way to detect the Oort Cloud, it will be found. Because the same process verified the Kuiper Belt. BTW, I think you actually mean "inexplicable", not unexplainable. "Unexplainable" means there can't be an explanation for it, while "inexplicable" means that there hasn't been an explanation found for it. Today, most people use the two interchangeably. The Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud were once inexplicable, but as you just discovered, they were not unexplainable.