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