Final answer:
A scientific theory is well-supported by evidence and rigorous analysis, much like the process that led to Kepler's laws based on empirical data. The new theory on planet orbits, developed from an amateur astronomer's observations and extensive scientific study over three decades, qualifies as such when backed by comprehensive data and adherence to scientific principles.
Step-by-step explanation:
A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. In this case, the amateur astronomer's observations and the subsequent 30 years of observation and experimentation by scientists have led to the development of a new theory about the orbit of planets, which can be considered a scientific theory if it adheres to established scientific principles and is based on thorough research and data.
Similar to the historical process where Kepler's laws of planetary motion were derived, this new theory would have required the careful collection and analysis of observational data. Kepler, for instance, analyzed Tycho Brahe's precise data on planetary positions to formulate his laws depicting the orbits of celestial bodies. The new theory concerning the orbit of planets would also rely on empirical observations and mathematical analysis.
The reference to the Jupiter system and Galileo's discovery of its moons illustrates an example of how empirical evidence can challenge and eventually change the prevailing theories of the time, such as the geocentric model that was replaced by the heliocentric model.