I think you need to read this, first of all: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersi...
Actually, the earth is not round. It is more round than flat, but it is an oblate spheroid. You are showing off your high school education there...
Actually, the Earth is round. If you're going to claim that an oblate spheroid isn't round, then I'm going to claim that the sandcastle I built has taken the Earth from being an oblate spheroid to a sandcastle-surfaced oblate spheroid.
Somebody with a post-high school education can surely look up the definition of round: "shaped like or approximately like a sphere.". The Earth is approximately an oblate spheroid, and approximately a sphere.
The earth orbiting the sun is a tautology,
No it isn't. Seriously? People got burned at the stake over this.
Okay, it's disputed whether they were burned over this, whether the most prominent proponents just *happened* to get burned at the stake for unrelated reasons, but still.
that is the planets orbit the sun, and that defines the word orbit
For it to be a tautology, Earth would have to be, by definition, a planet. But we Earthlings concluded that Earth is a planet because the Earth orbits the sun.
Note though that we say the Earth orbits the Sun because that's a much simpler model than epicycles, but you *can* come up with an entirely consistent set of orbital mechanics where the Earth is defined to contain the center of the solar system. It's just not worth doing, so we say prefer to say the Earth orbits the sun. Planets are defined in the sense that is most convenient, without all the epicycles.
If you mean that the earth revolves around the sun as opposed to the sun revolving around the earth, you are describing a physical fact, not a scientific one.
Meaningless. Physics is science. Physical facts are scientific facts.
Science defines the law of gravity, the application of science only deduces that the earth revolves around the sun.
I don't understand the use of the word "only" in that sentence, but regardless, you seem to be contradicting yourself.
Space time can be curved AS FAR AS WE KNOW.
That's what SCIENCE IS.
Your statement is very similar to the statements made by Newtonian physicists.
You have to realize, if there's something deeper than General Relativity (and there is, because it's not fully unified with Quantum Mechanics, at least not in a settled way), it has to converge to the same results as General Relativity, within the very small margins of error we have, for every test we've ever had of General Relativity. The same as General Relativity converges on Newtonian Physics. Newtonian Physics is correct, so long as you aren't dealing with quantum-scale things or situations where space-time's curvature comes into play.
We might learn tomorrow that this only appears to be the case and there is some other, deeper fundamental behavior.
Yep. But the ground doesn't cease to be flat as far as the eye can see when we discover that the round-Earth model is the best explanation for why you can walk due east from a given point and never head West, and ultimately end up back where you started.
Curved space-time is the difference between General Relativity and Newtonian Physics, and the difference is there.
This is why we have theories about everything, instead of laws, because even Newtons laws have caveats thanks to our understanding of general relativity.
No, it's not. Theory doesn't mean a law we aren't sure of. It's not a hierarchy. The difference is somewhat fuzzy but as a rule of thumb, if you see a mathematical statement with an equals sign, it's a law. If you see a whole pile of words, it's a theory.
Law is a generalization of facts. Theory is an explanation of why those facts are. Both Laws and Theories can have domains of validity.
If you are closing the door on further investigation, it is not science, it may be politics or religion, but not science.
Nobody is closing the door on further investigation. They are stating that we're pretty sure of this one. The reason people say the science is settled, is in contrast to a bunch of people who say they still aren't convinced of Global Warming, usually because they just experienced a snowstorm or some other anecdotal data point. If you aren't convinced by the data available to us now, you are unconvincable (note, it's possible you aren't convinced by the data that's crossed your eyes to this point, but the data we *have* now is enough to any reasonable standard). You're still free to overturn it if you find stunning new evidence, but we shouldn't pretend that it's likely or inevitable that this overturning will happen.