speedfreek, I think your thinking is sound, and I have no problem with it. In particular, I have no problem with people wanting to test hypothetical models for shape of the Universe that can be eliminated or confirmed as plausible only through a reasonable amount of testing. If they test those models and find persuasive evidence for their validity, the effort will have been justified. If the effort fails, the onus will be on them and the sponsors of their research to justify the cost, time, and manhours spent on the effort that might have been expended on some other research. I would not deny them the right to test their ideas, no matter how outlandish they seem to me.

I'm saying only that all of the models of the Universe that I am aware of as having been proposed other than the four-dimensional hypersphere that I and presumably others have proposed impress me as being so improbable that I myself dismiss them out of hand, but I have no problem with others who feel differently looking for evidence to support their models.

As for what constitutes good science, I'll leave that to others to say. If people want to invest time, effort, and money on studies that seem to others to be destined to produce negative results, I say let them go ahead if those with the money to fund the effort are willing to provide the money. If they fail, they will at least have provided an answer to a question.

As for the glued dodecahedron model, I would have been most astonished if convincing evidence had been found for it.