Greetings,
         Scientific discoveries proceed in a least two different fashions.
One is to collect much evidence and then try to make sense of it. Another
is to take what very little evidence there is and to develop a theory to be
proved, if possible.
         An example would be, the Greeks developed the theory of atoms by
observing that a pan of water evaporates, not a once, but by tiny
unmeasurable increments. It took thousands of years to prove the existence
of molecules and the different states of matter.
         Hubble observed the slightest difference in the color spectrum of
stars whose presumed distance from earth was different. He developed the
theory of the red shift and the expanding universe, which is embraced by
most, if not all, astronomers.  How could that ever be proved? If the
distances to the stars, which can't even be measured directly, is wrong,
the whole theory is wrong.
         Einstein apparently developed his theories entirely in his
imagination and would have to wait for others to develop the "proofs."
Galileo was excommunicated for declaring the planets revolve around the
sun, based on observations that couldn't really be "proved" until we had
actually sent space craft to these planets.
         Now this is not to say that there haven't been an equal or greater
number of theories that were nothing more than cherished pipe dreams. A
list of those would be easy enough to compile But even scientists are
allowed to dream ...

PB
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Peter Borst
Apiary Technician
Dyce Honeybee Lab
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY  14853
[log in to unmask]
607 275 0266
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/plb6/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -