Here they are talking about Andromeda. So what we seem to have is spectral lines that are not normally able to be seen from earth. But if they go way up in a mountain, or some such places, they can see some. So how many other things can they NOT see?! What sort of incomplete picture did we used to get decades ago? What sort of incomplete picture do we now get, but maybe do not yet know??
This gets my point all wrong. I don't think you understand. When scientists cannot physically go and preform tests on something, they make models. Then, they take the models and try and find how accurate the model is. When a scientist sees something they want to know about, like what the Sun made out of, they first ask themselves how it would be. A scientist would look at hydrogen and helium based off of the current model, which suggests and has suggested that the sun is made out of hydrogen and helium, and then he would go out and get the clearest reading he could. Scientists have known about contaminants that can get in the way of actually finding accurate spectroscope measurements, so we counteract that by getting as far out of the atmosphere as possible. I don't know if you know this, but in this day and age, we use the Hubble space telescope and other orbiting observatories, because they quite literally have nothing between their lens and their target.
Nothing about hydrogen, or carbon, etc in space presents a problem that I can see. It is merely a material. How far away is it, and what else is there, and what forces are working there, and what time is woven in to the mix if any?
I don't understand what you're saying fully here, but I think you are trying to imply the idea that even though material behaves similarly in deep space, predictable by the same methods we use on earth, it doesn't do a thing to your baseless hypothesis that everywhere is different from right now on earth.
Irrelevant. Our system is not deep space.
It doesn't have to be. Light already takes eight minutes to simply get to Earth, and the solar system is more than sixty times that in diameter. I believe you are also talking about the special theory of relativity, which is different from the general theory.
Example of a star we predict the movement of, and how we confirm it moved? Irrelevant. As above.
You might want to take a look at Omega Centauri before you insist that models are irrelevant.
Nonsense. We know little about the sun anyhow, have you ever been inside it?
We don't have to be inside of the sun to understand how it works. I'm going to put this into language for a child: Modern science uses "detective skills" (deduction) to understand how things that are infeasible work. You seem to have gotten caught up on the idea of "IT MUST BE DIRECTLY SEEN TO EXIST/WORK THAT WAY" which is "baloney" and not necessary in science. It's helpful when it can work like that, but when can see something behave as it is predicted to behave every time they test it, they can conclude---
I do hope you'll excuse me, my hard drive is failing. I'll be back to edit the rest of this