[El Gato]

yeah... the problem with things this theoretical is it's too easy for them to just ad hoc up a little change and then ask for more funding and a shiny new telescope to 'verify' it.

That is way science works. You make an observation, especially an unexpected one. Then you postulate an explanation. From that explanation, you make a prediction. If your science is an experimental one, your prediction should the outcome of an experiment, but if, like astronomy/astrophysics, it's an observational one, they you have to make more observations to look for the effect you predict. If you find it, your explanation, ie. your theory, is verified, always subject to other observations tending to disprove it.

[Nick Thimmesch]

I’ve been feeling a little odd lately and now I know why:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/pisky/alienpixyhat.jpg

Must be my hat!

[verum ago]

Oh. I didn’t realize that by setting out to prove one’s explanation of an anomalous explanation by observing its effects was proper scientific conduct. But I guess that properly shoulding the outcome of an experiment verifies a prediction such that it’s underlying explanation must be true, and the burden of proof is upon falsification (should they tend to do so).

[grey_whiskers]

Or you see if the observations are thought to be the result of a particular interaction which can be modeled and tested here on Earth.

Kinda hard to fit an entire star into a test tube...

Cheers!