Science isn't supposed to be real. it's supposed to be a model. In this case one that's making accurate predictions. You don't need to take that on faith. The more independent people who don't take it on faith and instead check the maths and repeat the observations the better the model is said to be. However if you're really lucky you'll find that the model is wrong and you'll observe something that the model didn't predict and then the old model will be proven wrong and new models will need to be created that give a closer fit to observed reality. You're right that this doesn't prove Einstein. That's not what was attempted. instead observations were made that had the potential to disprove Einstein. They didn't and so Einstein's theories stand firm for another day.

@MattHardy I only mentioned Einstein because you did in your post... but my point is all interstellar "stuff" is really quite beyond the laypersons ability to "do the math" or even have the ability to be involved at any level with the science of it all.. Therefore I take it on "faith" that the pics I see from satellites and telescopes are real.. not a conjuring.. like.. the Horse Head nebula, as an example, I believe it really exists and resembles a horses head.

I can't see it with my own eyes anymore than I see miracles attributed to divinity.

They only difference is I am willing to suspend my skepticism regarding science..whereas I will not afford the same willingness to religion. Proof or no proof.. Einstein or no Einstein.. it is my personal choice to believe one over the other.

@Davekp My Post? what post was that?

@MattHardy my reply was for gsiamne.. I didn’t realize you were answering for someone else.

@Davekp thought you may have mistaken me for someone else. I don't think I was answering for anyone else. Just making conversation. I do agree that the Maths for General Relativity is beyond the layperson. I studied Physics at degree level and at the time had a pretty good handle on Special Relativity but one look at the General Relativity course and I ran away. There were easier options than tackling that. However I was acquainted with a number of people who took that course and don't think that faith is the right word for describe my trust in what they tell me about those equations. For many, faith is a dirty word that elevates the credulous acceptance of assertions made without any evidence as some sort of virtue. I understand that there a certain practical overlap between making an assertion without evidence and making an assertion with evidence I don't have the skills to verify but also a very fundamental difference. I guess that's why you put it in "quotes"