I'm sorry, then I am confused . . . what was the point? I thought I addressed you directly, on topic. I must have missed something?
You were responding to a post about Galileo and Copernicus being attacked by the church for talking about 'observed facts'.
Now Galileo and Copernicus advocated heliocentrism and I asked you what 'observed fact' you were talking about and what is the observation that proves it?
If it's a fact, it must have been proved. If it hasn't been proved, it isn't a fact, but a belief.