[QUOTE=TJdude825]
I believe Kepler thought the planets’ distances from the sun were based on imaginary polyhedra and spheres nested inside one another.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, Kepler proposed this model at first, but withdrew it when he discovered what we now call Kepler’s Laws, which state that planetary orbits are ellipses. I think we specifically can’t count a hypothesis here if the scientist in question abandons it in light of evidence. That’s how the scientific method works. This example is actually a particularly good parallel to string theory.
[QUOTE=TJdude825]
I think Einstein’s idea that the passage of time and the length of objects can change depending on your point of view is rather outlandish, as are invisible rays that arise from electric and magnetic fields, and can carry energy and information. They just both happen to be right.
[/QUOTE]
Nitpick: The bit about the length of objects changing wasn’t Einstein’s idea, it was proposed by Hendrik Lorentz and George Fitzgerald in 1904, a year before Einstein picked up the idea.
Yes, Kepler proposed this model at first, but withdrew it when he discovered what we now call Kepler’s Laws, which state that planetary orbits are ellipses. I think we specifically can’t count a hypothesis here if the scientist in question abandons it in light of evidence. That’s how the scientific method works. This example is actually a particularly good parallel to string theory.
[/QUOTE]
Kepler did, however, hang on to the notion of “The Music of The Spheres”, believing planetary motions to correspond to musical harmonies. He published “Harmonice Mundi” after having formulated the first two laws of planetary motion in “Astronomia nova” 10 years earlier, and presented the third in that work, intertwined with a bunch of Astrology:
Kepler remained a Pythagorian mystic and Astrologer. Astrology and Astronomy weren’t really clearly separated in his era. Kepler firmly believed that the motions of the heavens influenced human affairs, and he was trying to unravel exactly how it worked.