Predictions have to be based on existing knowledge. The people who make such leaps be it a Jules Verne or Albert Einstein do admit they saw a validity not based on facts alone but as though knowledge was captured in the wind.

I swear to Einstein and   a dice playing God that rebounding stars of the gravity well type exist, not only in the works of current respected cosmologists but in the minds of followers of the standard model followers. I can source my material and authors. Other predictions I can not. A slow glow of a bound in time rebounding star as it rebounds? We may see one in our lifetime or not. They are here, they are queer but rebounding dark stars are nothing to fear. When it fits it fits, even when you have to take the sleeves in or tailor the waist. Get used to knowing this and you will be on the cutting edge of cosmology, the queen of science.

Personally I like the theory of a missing unseen dimension of space that balances the space time with which we are familiar. It helps me to understand 3 mysteries at the same time. But how to test is the problem. Clever minds, not mine, are required.




Gfs said better than a hundred posts of mine how an invested tenured scientist is sometimes a one trick pony. We are all creatures of perspective but when you sometimes take multiple perspectives into account we can assemble a whole from the parts that is different and possibly correct.

"Intuition as well as observation is valued in science. Great discoveries in science have come from following hunches or making a "bold leap of faith," as Einstein did at the beginning of our century when he reached beyond the built-up body of evidence then at hand by means of intuition. Flashes of insight, dreams, or hunches are usually allowed in science because they can be tested" etc

Even if cut and pasted it goes to the heart of the matter and could not have been better considered.